psychological ethical guidelines essay

Ethical Considerations In Psychology Research

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Ethics refers to the correct rules of conduct necessary when carrying out research. We have a moral responsibility to protect research participants from harm.

However important the issue under investigation, psychologists must remember that they have a duty to respect the rights and dignity of research participants. This means that they must abide by certain moral principles and rules of conduct.

What are Ethical Guidelines?

In Britain, ethical guidelines for research are published by the British Psychological Society, and in America, by the American Psychological Association. The purpose of these codes of conduct is to protect research participants, the reputation of psychology, and psychologists themselves.

Moral issues rarely yield a simple, unambiguous, right or wrong answer. It is, therefore, often a matter of judgment whether the research is justified or not.

For example, it might be that a study causes psychological or physical discomfort to participants; maybe they suffer pain or perhaps even come to serious harm.

On the other hand, the investigation could lead to discoveries that benefit the participants themselves or even have the potential to increase the sum of human happiness.

Rosenthal and Rosnow (1984) also discuss the potential costs of failing to carry out certain research. Who is to weigh up these costs and benefits? Who is to judge whether the ends justify the means?

Finally, if you are ever in doubt as to whether research is ethical or not, it is worthwhile remembering that if there is a conflict of interest between the participants and the researcher, it is the interests of the subjects that should take priority.

Studies must now undergo an extensive review by an institutional review board (US) or ethics committee (UK) before they are implemented. All UK research requires ethical approval by one or more of the following:

• Department Ethics Committee (DEC) : for most routine research.
• Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) : for non-routine research.
• External Ethics Committee (EEC) : for research that s externally regulated (e.g., NHS research).

Committees review proposals to assess if the potential benefits of the research are justifiable in light of the possible risk of physical or psychological harm.

These committees may request researchers make changes to the study’s design or procedure or, in extreme cases, deny approval of the study altogether.

The British Psychological Society (BPS) and American Psychological Association (APA) have issued a code of ethics in psychology that provides guidelines for conducting research.  Some of the more important ethical issues are as follows:

Informed Consent

Before the study begins, the researcher must outline to the participants what the research is about and then ask for their consent (i.e., permission) to participate.

An adult (18 years +) capable of being permitted to participate in a study can provide consent. Parents/legal guardians of minors can also provide consent to allow their children to participate in a study.

Whenever possible, investigators should obtain the consent of participants. In practice, this means it is not sufficient to get potential participants to say “Yes.”

They also need to know what it is that they agree to. In other words, the psychologist should, so far as is practicable, explain what is involved in advance and obtain the informed consent of participants.

Informed consent must be informed, voluntary, and rational. Participants must be given relevant details to make an informed decision, including the purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits. Consent must be given voluntarily without undue coercion. And participants must have the capacity to rationally weigh the decision.

Components of informed consent include clearly explaining the risks and expected benefits, addressing potential therapeutic misconceptions about experimental treatments, allowing participants to ask questions, and describing methods to minimize risks like emotional distress.

Investigators should tailor the consent language and process appropriately for the study population. Obtaining meaningful informed consent is an ethical imperative for human subjects research.

The voluntary nature of participation should not be compromised through coercion or undue influence. Inducements should be fair and not excessive/inappropriate.

However, it is not always possible to gain informed consent.  Where the researcher can’t ask the actual participants, a similar group of people can be asked how they would feel about participating.

If they think it would be OK, then it can be assumed that the real participants will also find it acceptable. This is known as presumptive consent.

However, a problem with this method is that there might be a mismatch between how people think they would feel/behave and how they actually feel and behave during a study.

In order for consent to be ‘informed,’ consent forms may need to be accompanied by an information sheet for participants’ setting out information about the proposed study (in lay terms), along with details about the investigators and how they can be contacted.

Special considerations exist when obtaining consent from vulnerable populations with decisional impairments, such as psychiatric patients, intellectually disabled persons, and children/adolescents. Capacity can vary widely so should be assessed individually, but interventions to improve comprehension may help. Legally authorized representatives usually must provide consent for children.

Participants must be given information relating to the following:

• A statement that participation is voluntary and that refusal to participate will not result in any consequences or any loss of benefits that the person is otherwise entitled to receive.
• Purpose of the research.
• All foreseeable risks and discomforts to the participant (if there are any). These include not only physical injury but also possible psychological.
• Procedures involved in the research.
• Benefits of the research to society and possibly to the individual human subject.
• Length of time the subject is expected to participate.
• Person to contact for answers to questions or in the event of injury or emergency.
• Subjects” right to confidentiality and the right to withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences.

Debriefing after a study involves informing participants about the purpose, providing an opportunity to ask questions, and addressing any harm from participation. Debriefing serves an educational function and allows researchers to correct misconceptions. It is an ethical imperative.

After the research is over, the participant should be able to discuss the procedure and the findings with the psychologist. They must be given a general idea of what the researcher was investigating and why, and their part in the research should be explained.

Participants must be told if they have been deceived and given reasons why. They must be asked if they have any questions, which should be answered honestly and as fully as possible.

Debriefing should occur as soon as possible and be as full as possible; experimenters should take reasonable steps to ensure that participants understand debriefing.

“The purpose of debriefing is to remove any misconceptions and anxieties that the participants have about the research and to leave them with a sense of dignity, knowledge, and a perception of time not wasted” (Harris, 1998).

The debriefing aims to provide information and help the participant leave the experimental situation in a similar frame of mind as when he/she entered it (Aronson, 1988).

Exceptions may exist if debriefing seriously compromises study validity or causes harm itself, like negative emotions in children. Consultation with an institutional review board guides exceptions.

Debriefing indicates investigators’ commitment to participant welfare. Harms may not be raised in the debriefing itself, so responsibility continues after data collection. Following up demonstrates respect and protects persons in human subjects research.

Protection of Participants

Researchers must ensure that those participating in research will not be caused distress. They must be protected from physical and mental harm. This means you must not embarrass, frighten, offend or harm participants.

Normally, the risk of harm must be no greater than in ordinary life, i.e., participants should not be exposed to risks greater than or additional to those encountered in their normal lifestyles.

The researcher must also ensure that if vulnerable groups are to be used (elderly, disabled, children, etc.), they must receive special care. For example, if studying children, ensure their participation is brief as they get tired easily and have a limited attention span.

Researchers are not always accurately able to predict the risks of taking part in a study, and in some cases, a therapeutic debriefing may be necessary if participants have become disturbed during the research (as happened to some participants in Zimbardo’s prisoners/guards study ).

Deception research involves purposely misleading participants or withholding information that could influence their participation decision. This method is controversial because it limits informed consent and autonomy, but can provide otherwise unobtainable valuable knowledge.

Types of deception include (i) deliberate misleading, e.g. using confederates, staged manipulations in field settings, deceptive instructions; (ii) deception by omission, e.g., failure to disclose full information about the study, or creating ambiguity.

The researcher should avoid deceiving participants about the nature of the research unless there is no alternative – and even then, this would need to be judged acceptable by an independent expert. However, some types of research cannot be carried out without at least some element of deception.

For example, in Milgram’s study of obedience , the participants thought they were giving electric shocks to a learner when they answered a question wrongly. In reality, no shocks were given, and the learners were confederates of Milgram.

This is sometimes necessary to avoid demand characteristics (i.e., the clues in an experiment that lead participants to think they know what the researcher is looking for).

Another common example is when a stooge or confederate of the experimenter is used (this was the case in both the experiments carried out by Asch ).

According to ethics codes, deception must have strong scientific justification, and non-deceptive alternatives should not be feasible. Deception that causes significant harm is prohibited. Investigators should carefully weigh whether deception is necessary and ethical for their research.

However, participants must be deceived as little as possible, and any deception must not cause distress.  Researchers can determine whether participants are likely distressed when deception is disclosed by consulting culturally relevant groups.

Participants should immediately be informed of the deception without compromising the study’s integrity. Reactions to learning of deception can range from understanding to anger. Debriefing should explain the scientific rationale and social benefits to minimize negative reactions.

If the participant is likely to object or be distressed once they discover the true nature of the research at debriefing, then the study is unacceptable.

If you have gained participants’ informed consent by deception, then they will have agreed to take part without actually knowing what they were consenting to.  The true nature of the research should be revealed at the earliest possible opportunity or at least during debriefing.

Some researchers argue that deception can never be justified and object to this practice as it (i) violates an individual’s right to choose to participate; (ii) is a questionable basis on which to build a discipline; and (iii) leads to distrust of psychology in the community.

Confidentiality

Protecting participant confidentiality is an ethical imperative that demonstrates respect, ensures honest participation, and prevents harms like embarrassment or legal issues. Methods like data encryption, coding systems, and secure storage should match the research methodology.

Participants and the data gained from them must be kept anonymous unless they give their full consent.  No names must be used in a lab report .

Researchers must clearly describe to participants the limits of confidentiality and methods to protect privacy. With internet research, threats exist like third-party data access; security measures like encryption should be explained. For non-internet research, other protections should be noted too, like coding systems and restricted data access.

High-profile data breaches have eroded public trust. Methods that minimize identifiable information can further guard confidentiality. For example, researchers can consider whether birthdates are necessary or just ages.

Generally, reducing personal details collected and limiting accessibility safeguards participants. Following strong confidentiality protections demonstrates respect for persons in human subjects research.

What do we do if we discover something that should be disclosed (e.g., a criminal act)? Researchers have no legal obligation to disclose criminal acts and must determine the most important consideration: their duty to the participant vs. their duty to the wider community.

Ultimately, decisions to disclose information must be set in the context of the research aims.

Withdrawal from an Investigation

Participants should be able to leave a study anytime if they feel uncomfortable. They should also be allowed to withdraw their data. They should be told at the start of the study that they have the right to withdraw.

They should not have pressure placed upon them to continue if they do not want to (a guideline flouted in Milgram’s research).

Participants may feel they shouldn’t withdraw as this may ‘spoil’ the study. Many participants are paid or receive course credits; they may worry they won’t get this if they withdraw.

Even at the end of the study, the participant has a final opportunity to withdraw the data they have provided for the research.

Ethical Issues in Psychology & Socially Sensitive Research

There has been an assumption over the years by many psychologists that provided they follow the BPS or APA guidelines when using human participants and that all leave in a similar state of mind to how they turned up, not having been deceived or humiliated, given a debrief, and not having had their confidentiality breached, that there are no ethical concerns with their research.

But consider the following examples:

a) Caughy et al. 1994 found that middle-class children in daycare at an early age generally score less on cognitive tests than children from similar families reared in the home.

Assuming all guidelines were followed, neither the parents nor the children participating would have been unduly affected by this research. Nobody would have been deceived, consent would have been obtained, and no harm would have been caused.

However, consider the wider implications of this study when the results are published, particularly for parents of middle-class infants who are considering placing their young children in daycare or those who recently have!

b)  IQ tests administered to black Americans show that they typically score 15 points below the average white score.

When black Americans are given these tests, they presumably complete them willingly and are not harmed as individuals. However, when published, findings of this sort seek to reinforce racial stereotypes and are used to discriminate against the black population in the job market, etc.

Sieber & Stanley (1988) (the main names for Socially Sensitive Research (SSR) outline 4 groups that may be affected by psychological research: It is the first group of people that we are most concerned with!

• Members of the social group being studied, such as racial or ethnic group. For example, early research on IQ was used to discriminate against US Blacks.
• Friends and relatives of those participating in the study, particularly in case studies, where individuals may become famous or infamous. Cases that spring to mind would include Genie’s mother.
• The research team. There are examples of researchers being intimidated because of the line of research they are in.
• The institution in which the research is conducted.

salso suggest there are 4 main ethical concerns when conducting SSR:

• The research question or hypothesis.
• The treatment of individual participants.
• The institutional context.
• How the findings of the research are interpreted and applied.

Ethical Guidelines For Carrying Out SSR

Sieber and Stanley suggest the following ethical guidelines for carrying out SSR. There is some overlap between these and research on human participants in general.

Privacy : This refers to people rather than data. Asking people questions of a personal nature (e.g., about sexuality) could offend.

Confidentiality: This refers to data. Information (e.g., about H.I.V. status) leaked to others may affect the participant’s life.

Sound & valid methodology : This is even more vital when the research topic is socially sensitive. Academics can detect flaws in methods, but the lay public and the media often don’t.

When research findings are publicized, people are likely to consider them fact, and policies may be based on them. Examples are Bowlby’s maternal deprivation studies and intelligence testing.

Deception : Causing the wider public to believe something, which isn’t true by the findings, you report (e.g., that parents are responsible for how their children turn out).

Informed consent : Participants should be made aware of how participating in the research may affect them.

Justice & equitable treatment : Examples of unjust treatment are (i) publicizing an idea, which creates a prejudice against a group, & (ii) withholding a treatment, which you believe is beneficial, from some participants so that you can use them as controls.

Scientific freedom : Science should not be censored, but there should be some monitoring of sensitive research. The researcher should weigh their responsibilities against their rights to do the research.

Ownership of data : When research findings could be used to make social policies, which affect people’s lives, should they be publicly accessible? Sometimes, a party commissions research with their interests in mind (e.g., an industry, an advertising agency, a political party, or the military).

Some people argue that scientists should be compelled to disclose their results so that other scientists can re-analyze them. If this had happened in Burt’s day, there might not have been such widespread belief in the genetic transmission of intelligence. George Miller (Miller’s Magic 7) famously argued that we should give psychology away.

The values of social scientists : Psychologists can be divided into two main groups: those who advocate a humanistic approach (individuals are important and worthy of study, quality of life is important, intuition is useful) and those advocating a scientific approach (rigorous methodology, objective data).

The researcher’s values may conflict with those of the participant/institution. For example, if someone with a scientific approach was evaluating a counseling technique based on a humanistic approach, they would judge it on criteria that those giving & receiving the therapy may not consider important.

Cost/benefit analysis : It is unethical if the costs outweigh the potential/actual benefits. However, it isn’t easy to assess costs & benefits accurately & the participants themselves rarely benefit from research.

Sieber & Stanley advise that researchers should not avoid researching socially sensitive issues. Scientists have a responsibility to society to find useful knowledge.

• They need to take more care over consent, debriefing, etc. when the issue is sensitive.
• They should be aware of how their findings may be interpreted & used by others.
• They should make explicit the assumptions underlying their research so that the public can consider whether they agree with these.
• They should make the limitations of their research explicit (e.g., ‘the study was only carried out on white middle-class American male students,’ ‘the study is based on questionnaire data, which may be inaccurate,’ etc.
• They should be careful how they communicate with the media and policymakers.
• They should be aware of the balance between their obligations to participants and those to society (e.g. if the participant tells them something which they feel they should tell the police/social services).
• They should be aware of their own values and biases and those of the participants.

Arguments for SSR

• Psychologists have devised methods to resolve the issues raised.
• SSR is the most scrutinized research in psychology. Ethical committees reject more SSR than any other form of research.
• By gaining a better understanding of issues such as gender, race, and sexuality, we are able to gain greater acceptance and reduce prejudice.
• SSR has been of benefit to society, for example, EWT. This has made us aware that EWT can be flawed and should not be used without corroboration. It has also made us aware that the EWT of children is every bit as reliable as that of adults.
• Most research is still on white middle-class Americans (about 90% of research is quoted in texts!). SSR is helping to redress the balance and make us more aware of other cultures and outlooks.

Arguments against SSR

• Flawed research has been used to dictate social policy and put certain groups at a disadvantage.
• Research has been used to discriminate against groups in society, such as the sterilization of people in the USA between 1910 and 1920 because they were of low intelligence, criminal, or suffered from psychological illness.
• The guidelines used by psychologists to control SSR lack power and, as a result, are unable to prevent indefensible research from being carried out.

American Psychological Association. (2002). American Psychological Association ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html

Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s” Behavioral study of obedience.”.  American Psychologist ,  19 (6), 421.

Caughy, M. O. B., DiPietro, J. A., & Strobino, D. M. (1994). Day‐care participation as a protective factor in the cognitive development of low‐income children.  Child development ,  65 (2), 457-471.

Harris, B. (1988). Key words: A history of debriefing in social psychology. In J. Morawski (Ed.), The rise of experimentation in American psychology (pp. 188-212). New York: Oxford University Press.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Applying Hamlet’s question to the ethical conduct of research: A conceptual addendum. American Psychologist, 39(5) , 561.

Sieber, J. E., & Stanley, B. (1988). Ethical and professional dimensions of socially sensitive research.  American psychologist ,  43 (1), 49.

The British Psychological Society. (2010). Code of Human Research Ethics. www.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/code_of_human_research_ethics.pdf

Further Information

• MIT Psychology Ethics Lecture Slides

BPS Documents

• Code of Ethics and Conduct (2018)
• Good Practice Guidelines for the Conduct of Psychological Research within the NHS
• Guidelines for Psychologists Working with Animals
• Guidelines for ethical practice in psychological research online

APA Documents

APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

The Process of Conducting Ethical Research in Psychology

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Tom Merton / Getty Images

Earlier in psychology history, many experiments were performed with highly questionable and even outrageous violations of ethical considerations. Milgram's infamous obedience experiment , for example, involved deceiving human subjects into believing that they were delivering painful, possibly even life-threatening, electrical shocks to another person.

These controversial psychology experiments played a major role in the development of the ethical guidelines and regulations that psychologists must abide by today. When performing studies or experiments that involve human participants, psychologists must submit their proposal to an institutional review board (IRB) for approval. ​These committees help ensure that experiments conform to ethical and legal guidelines.

Ethical codes, such as those established by the American Psychological Association, are designed to protect the safety and best interests of those who participate in psychological research. Such guidelines also protect the reputations of psychologists, the field of psychology itself and the institutions that sponsor psychology research.

Ethical Guidelines for Research With Human Subjects

When determining ethical guidelines for research , most experts agree that the cost of conducting the experiment must be weighed against the potential benefit to society the research may provide. While there is still a great deal of debate about ethical guidelines, there are some key components that should be followed when conducting any type of research with human subjects.

Participation Must Be Voluntary

All ethical research must be conducted using willing participants.   Study volunteers should not feel coerced, threatened or bribed into participation. This becomes especially important for researchers working at universities or prisons, where students and inmates are often encouraged to participate in experiments.

Researchers Must Obtain Informed Consent

Informed consent is a procedure in which all study participants are told about procedures and informed of any potential risks.   Consent should be documented in written form. Informed consent ensures that participants know enough about the experiment to make an informed decision about whether or not they want to participate.

Obviously, this can present problems in cases where telling the participants the necessary details about the experiment might unduly influence their responses or behaviors in the study. The use of deception in psychology research is allowed in certain instances, but only if the study would be impossible to conduct without the use of deception, if the research will provide some sort of valuable insight and if the subjects will be debriefed and informed about the study's true purpose after the data has been collected.

Researchers Must Maintain Participant Confidentiality

Confidentiality is an essential part of any ethical psychology research.   Participants need to be guaranteed that identifying information and individual responses will not be shared with anyone who is not involved in the study.

While these guidelines provide some ethical standards for research, each study is different and may present unique challenges. Because of this, most colleges and universities have a Human Subjects Committee or Institutional Review Board that oversees and grants approval for any research conducted by faculty members or students. These committees provide an important safeguard to ensure academic research is ethical and does not pose a risk to study participants.

American Psychological Association. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct .

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• Original article
• Open access
• Published: 13 July 2021

Assisting you to advance with ethics in research: an introduction to ethical governance and application procedures

• Shivadas Sivasubramaniam 1 ,
• Dita Henek Dlabolová 2 ,
• Veronika Kralikova 3 &
• Zeenath Reza Khan 3  

International Journal for Educational Integrity volume  17 , Article number:  14 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

17k Accesses

12 Citations

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

Ethics and ethical behaviour are the fundamental pillars of a civilised society. The focus on ethical behaviour is indispensable in certain fields such as medicine, finance, or law. In fact, ethics gets precedence with anything that would include, affect, transform, or influence upon individuals, communities or any living creatures. Many institutions within Europe have set up their own committees to focus on or approve activities that have ethical impact. In contrast, lesser-developed countries (worldwide) are trying to set up these committees to govern their academia and research. As the first European consortium established to assist academic integrity, European Network for Academic Integrity (ENAI), we felt the importance of guiding those institutions and communities that are trying to conduct research with ethical principles. We have established an ethical advisory working group within ENAI with the aim to promote ethics within curriculum, research and institutional policies. We are constantly researching available data on this subject and committed to help the academia to convey and conduct ethical behaviour. Upon preliminary review and discussion, the group found a disparity in understanding, practice and teaching approaches to ethical applications of research projects among peers. Therefore, this short paper preliminarily aims to critically review the available information on ethics, the history behind establishing ethical principles and its international guidelines to govern research.

The paper is based on the workshop conducted in the 5th International conference Plagiarism across Europe and Beyond, in Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania in 2019. During the workshop, we have detailed a) basic needs of an ethical committee within an institution; b) a typical ethical approval process (with examples from three different universities); and c) the ways to obtain informed consent with some examples. These are summarised in this paper with some example comparisons of ethical approval processes from different universities. We believe this paper will provide guidelines on preparing and training both researchers and research students in appropriately upholding ethical practices through ethical approval processes.

Introduction

Ethics and ethical behaviour (often linked to “responsible practice”) are the fundamental pillars of a civilised society. Ethical behaviour with integrity is important to maintain academic and research activities. It affects everything we do, and gets precedence with anything that would include/affect, transform, or impact upon individuals, communities or any living creatures. In other words, ethics would help us improve our living standards (LaFollette, 2007 ). The focus on ethical behaviour is indispensable in certain fields such as medicine, finance, or law, but is also gaining recognition in all disciplines engaged in research. Therefore, institutions are expected to develop ethical guidelines in research to maintain quality, initiate/own integrity and above all be transparent to be successful by limiting any allegation of misconduct (Flite and Harman, 2013 ). This is especially true for higher education organisations that promote research and scholarly activities. Many European institutions have developed their own regulations for ethics by incorporating international codes (Getz, 1990 ). The lesser developed countries are trying to set up these committees to govern their academia and research. World Health Organization has stated that adhering to “ ethical principles … [is central and important]... in order to protect the dignity, rights and welfare of research participants ” (WHO, 2021 ). Ethical guidelines taught to students can help develop ethical researchers and members of society who uphold values of ethical principles in practice.

As the first European-wide consortium established to assist academic integrity (European Network for Academic Integrity – ENAI), we felt the importance of guiding those institutions and communities that are trying to teach, research, and include ethical principles by providing overarching understanding of ethical guidelines that may influence policy. Therefore, we set up an advisory working group within ENAI in 2018 to support matters related to ethics, ethical committees and assisting on ethics related teaching activities.

Upon preliminary review and discussion, the group found a disparity in understanding, practice and teaching approaches to ethical applications among peers. This became the premise for this research paper. We first carried out a literature survey to review and summarise existing ethical governance (with historical perspectives) and procedures that are already in place to guide researchers in different discipline areas. By doing so, we attempted to consolidate, document and provide important steps in a typical ethical application process with example procedures from different universities. Finally, we attempted to provide insights and findings from practical workshops carried out at the 5th International Conference Plagiarism across Europe and Beyond, in Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania in 2019, focussing on:

• highlighting the basic needs of an ethical committee within an institution,

• discussing and sharing examples of a typical ethical approval process,

• providing guidelines on the ways to teach research ethics with some examples.

We believe this paper provides guidelines on preparing and training both researchers and research students in appropriately upholding ethical practices through ethical approval processes.

Background literature survey

Responsible research practice (RRP) is scrutinised by the aspects of ethical principles and professional standards (WHO’s Code of Conduct for responsible Research, 2017). The Singapore statement on research integrity (The Singapore Statement on Research integrity, 2010) has provided an internationally acceptable guidance for RRP. The statement is based on maintaining honesty, accountability, professional courtesy in all aspects of research and maintaining fairness during collaborations. In other words, it does not simply focus on the procedural part of the research, instead covers wider aspects of “integrity” beyond the operational aspects (Israel and Drenth, 2016 ).

Institutions should focus on providing ethical guidance based on principles and values reflecting upon all aspects/stages of research (from the funding application/project development stage upto or beyond project closing stage). Figure  1 summarizes the different aspects/stages of a typical research and highlights the needs of RRP in compliance with ethical governance at each stage with examples (the figure is based on Resnik, 2020 ; Žukauskas et al., 2018 ; Anderson, 2011 ; Fouka and Mantzorou, 2011 ).

Summary of the enabling ethical governance at different stages of research. Note that it is imperative for researchers to proactively consider the ethical implications before, during and after the actual research process. The summary shows that RRP should be in line with ethical considerations even long before the ethical approval stage

Individual responsibilities to enhance RRP

As explained in Fig.  1 , a successfully governed research should consider ethics at the planning stages prior to research. Many international guidance are compatible in enforcing/recommending 14 different “responsibilities” that were first highlighted in the Singapore Statement (2010) for researchers to follow and achieve competency in RRP. In order to understand the purpose and the expectation of these ethical guidelines, we have carried out an initial literature survey on expected individual responsibilities. These are summarised in Table  1 .

By following these directives, researchers can carry out accountable research by maximising ethical self-governance whilst minimising misconducts. In our own experiences of working with many researchers, their focus usually revolves around ethical “clearance” rather than behaviour. In other words, they perceive this as a paper exercise rather than trying to “own” ethical behaviour in everything they do. Although the ethical principles and responsibilities are explicitly highlighted in the majority of international guidelines [such as UK’s Research Governance Policy (NICE, 2018 ), Australian Government’s National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Difn website a - National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NSECHR), 2018 ), the Singapore Statement (2010) etc.]; and the importance of holistic approach has been argued in ethical decision making, many researchers and/or institutions only focus on ethics linked to the procedural aspects.

Studies in the past have also highlighted inconsistencies in institutional guidelines pointing to the fact that these inconsistencies may hinder the predicted research progress (Desmond & Dierickx 2021 ; Alba et al., 2020 ; Dellaportas et al., 2014 ; Speight 2016 ). It may also be possible that these were and still are linked to the institutional perceptions/expectations or the pre-empting contextual conditions that are imposed by individual countries. In fact, it is interesting to note many research organisations and HE institutions establish their own policies based on these directives.

Research governance - origins, expectations and practices

Ethical governance in clinical medicine helps us by providing a structure for analysis and decision-making. By providing workable definitions of benefits and risks as well as the guidance for evaluating/balancing benefits over risks, it supports the researchers to protect the participants and the general population.

According to the definition given by National Institute of Clinical care Excellence, UK (NICE 2018 ), “ research governance can be defined as the broad range of regulations, principles and standards of good practice that ensure high quality research ”. As stated above, our literature-based research survey showed that most of the ethical definitions are basically evolved from the medical field and other disciplines have utilised these principles to develop their own ethical guidance. Interestingly, historical data show that the medical research has been “self-governed” or in other words implicated by the moral behaviour of individual researchers (Fox 2017 ; Shaw et al., 2005 ; Getz, 1990 ). For example, early human vaccination trials conducted in 1700s used the immediate family members as test subjects (Fox, 2017 ). Here the moral justification might have been the fact that the subjects who would have been at risk were either the scientists themselves or their immediate families but those who would reap the benefits from the vaccination were the general public/wider communities. However, according to the current ethical principles, this assumption is entirely not acceptable.

Historically, ambiguous decision-making and resultant incidences of research misconduct have led to the need for ethical research governance in as early as the 1940’s. For instance, the importance of an international governance was realised only after the World War II, when people were astonished to note the unethical research practices carried out by Nazi scientists. As a result of this, in 1947 the Nuremberg code was published. The code mainly focussed on the following:

Informed consent and further insisted the research involving humans should be based on prior animal work,

The anticipated benefits should outweigh the risk,

Research should be carried out only by qualified scientists must conduct research,

Avoiding physical and mental suffering and.

Avoiding human research that would result in which death or disability.

(Weindling, 2001 ).

Unfortunately, it was reported that many researchers in the USA and elsewhere considered the Nuremberg code as a document condemning the Nazi atrocities, rather than a code for ethical governance and therefore ignored these directives (Ghooi, 2011 ). It was only in 1964 that the World Medical Association published the Helsinki Declaration, which set the stage for ethical governance and the implementation of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process (Shamoo and Irving, 1993 ). This declaration was based on Nuremberg code. In addition, the declaration also paved the way for enforcing research being conducted in accordance with these guidelines.

Incidentally, the focus on research/ethical governance gained its momentum in 1974. As a result of this, a report on ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research was published in 1979 (The Belmont Report, 1979 ). This report paved the way to the current forms of ethical governance in biomedical and behavioural research by providing guidance.

Since 1994, the WHO itself has been providing several guidance to health care policy-makers, researchers and other stakeholders detailing the key concepts in medical ethics. These are specific to applying ethical principles in global public health.

Likewise, World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH), and International Convention for the Protection of Animals (ICPA) provide guidance on animal welfare in research. Due to this continuous guidance, together with accepted practices, there are internationally established ethical guidelines to carry out medical research. Our literature survey further identified freely available guidance from independent organisations such as COPE (Committee of Publication Ethics) and ALLEA (All European Academics) which provide support for maintaining research ethics in other fields such as education, sociology, psychology etc. In reality, ethical governance is practiced differently in different countries. In the UK, there is a clinical excellence research governance, which oversees all NHS related medical research (Mulholland and Bell, 2005 ). Although, the governance in other disciplines is not entirely centralised, many research funding councils and organisations [such as UKRI (UK-Research and Innovation; BBSC (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council; MRC (Medical Research Council); EPSRC (Economic and Social Research Council)] provide ethical governance and expect institutional adherence and monitoring. They expect local institutional (i.e. university/institutional) research governance for day-to-day monitoring of the research conducted within the organisation and report back to these funding bodies, monthly or annually (Department of Health, 2005). Likewise, there are nationally coordinated/regulated ethics governing bodies such as the US Office for Human Research Protections (US-OHRP), National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) in the USA and Canada respectively (Mulholland and Bell, 2005 ). The OHRP in the USA formally reviews all research activities involving human subjects. On the other hand, in Canada, CIHR works with the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). They together have produced a Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS) (Stephenson et al., 2020 ) as ethical governance. All Canadian institutions are expected to adhere to this policy for conducting research. As for Australia, the research is governed by the Australian code for the responsible conduct of research (2008). It identifies the responsibilities of institutions and researchers in all areas of research. The code has been jointly developed by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Australian Research Council (ARC) and Universities Australia (UA). This information is summarized in Table  2 .

Basic structure of an institutional ethical advisory committee (EAC)

The WHO published an article defining the basic concepts of an ethical advisory committee in 2009 (WHO, 2009 - see above). According to this, many countries have established research governance and monitor the ethical practice in research via national and/or regional review committees. The main aims of research ethics committees include reviewing the study proposals, trying to understand the justifications for human/animal use, weighing the merits and demerits of the usage (linking to risks vs. potential benefits) and ensuring the local, ethical guidelines are followed Difn website b - Enago academy Importance of Ethics Committees in Scholarly Research, 2020 ; Guide for Research Ethics - Council of Europe, 2014 ). Once the research has started, the committee needs to carry out periodic surveillance to ensure the institutional ethical norms are followed during and beyond the study. They may also be involved in setting up and/or reviewing the institutional policies.

For these aspects, IRB (or institutional ethical advisory committee - IEAC) is essential for local governance to enhance best practices. The advantage of an IRB/EEAC is that they understand the institutional conditions and can closely monitor the ongoing research, including any changes in research directions. On the other hand, the IRB may be overly supportive to accept applications, influenced by the local agenda for achieving research excellence, disregarding ethical issues (Kotecha et al., 2011 ; Kayser-Jones, 2003 ) or, they may be influenced by the financial interests in attracting external funding. In this respect, regional and national ethics committees are advantageous to ensure ethical practice. Due to their impartiality, they would provide greater consistency and legitimacy to the research (WHO, 2009 ). However, the ethical approval process of regional and national ethics committees would be time consuming, as they do not have the local knowledge.

As for membership in the IRBs, most of the guidelines [WHO, NICE, Council of Europe, (2012), European Commission - Facilitating Research Excellence in FP7 ( 2013 ) and OHRP] insist on having a variety of representations including experts in different fields of research, and non-experts with the understanding of local, national/international conflicts of interest. The former would be able to understand/clarify the procedural elements of the research in different fields; whilst the latter would help to make neutral and impartial decisions. These non-experts are usually not affiliated to the institution and consist of individuals representing the broader community (particularly those related to social, legal or cultural considerations). IRBs consisting of these varieties of representation would not only be in a position to understand the study procedures and their potential direct or indirect consequences for participants, but also be able to identify any community, cultural or religious implications of the study.

Understanding the subtle differences between ethics and morals

Interestingly, many ethical guidelines are based on society’s moral “beliefs” in such a way that the words “ethics”‘and “morals” are reciprocally used to define each other. However, there are several subtle differences between them and we have attempted to compare and contrast them herein. In the past, many authors have interchangeably used the words “morals”‘and “ethics”‘(Warwick, 2003 ; Kant, 2018 ; Hazard, GC (Jr)., 1994 , Larry, 1982 ). However, ethics is linked to rules governed by an external source such as codes of conduct in workplaces (Kuyare et al., 2014 ). In contrast, morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong. Quinn ( 2011 ) defines morality as “ rules of conduct describing what people ought and ought not to do in various situations … ” while ethics is “... the philosophical study of morality, a rational examination into people’s moral beliefs and behaviours ”. For instance, in a case of parents demanding that schools overturn a ban on use of corporal punishment of children by schools and teachers (Children’s Rights Alliance for England, 2005 ), the parents believed that teachers should assume the role of parent in schools and use corporal or physical punishment for children who misbehaved. This stemmed from their beliefs and what they felt were motivated by “beliefs of individuals or groups”. For example, recent media highlights about some parents opposing LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) education to their children (BBC News, 2019 ). One parent argued, “Teaching young children about LGBT at a very early stage is ‘morally’ wrong”. She argued “let them learn by themselves as they grow”. This behaviour is linked to and governed by the morals of an ethnic community. Thus, morals are linked to the “beliefs of individuals or group”. However, when it comes to the LGBT rights these are based on ethical principles of that society and governed by law of the land. However, the rights of children to be protected from “inhuman and degrading” treatment is based on the ethical principles of the society and governed by law of the land. Individuals, especially those who are working in medical or judicial professions have to follow an ethical code laid down by their profession, regardless of their own feelings, time or preferences. For instance, a lawyer is expected to follow the professional ethics and represent a defendant, despite the fact that his morals indicate the defendant is guilty.

In fact, we as a group could not find many scholarly articles clearly comparing or contrasting ethics with morals. However, a table presented by Surbhi ( 2015 ) (Difn website c ) tries to differentiate these two terms (see Table  3 ).

Although Table 3 gives some insight on the differences between these two terms, in practice many use these terms as loosely as possible mainly because of their ambiguity. As a group focussed on the application of these principles, we would recommend to use the term “ethics” and avoid “morals” in research and academia.

Based on the literature survey carried out, we were able to identify the following gaps:

there is some disparity in existing literature on the importance of ethical guidelines in research

there is a lack of consensus on what code of conduct should be followed, where it should be derived from and how it should be implemented

The mission of ENAI’s ethical advisory working group

The Ethical Advisory Working Group of ENAI was established in 2018 to promote ethical code of conduct/practice amongst higher educational organisations within Europe and beyond (European Network for Academic Integrity, 2018 ). We aim to provide unbiased advice and consultancy on embedding ethical principles within all types of academic, research and public engagement activities. Our main objective is to promote ethical principles and share good practice in this field. This advisory group aims to standardise ethical norms and to offer strategic support to activities including (but not exclusive to):

● rendering advice and assistance to develop institutional ethical committees and their regulations in member institutions,

● sharing good practice in research and academic ethics,

● acting as a critical guide to institutional review processes, assisting them to maintain/achieve ethical standards,

● collaborating with similar bodies in establishing collegiate partnerships to enhance awareness and practice in this field,

● providing support within and outside ENAI to develop materials to enhance teaching activities in this field,

● organising training for students and early-career researchers about ethical behaviours in form of lectures, seminars, debates and webinars,

● enhancing research and dissemination of the findings in matters and topics related to ethics.

The following sections focus on our suggestions based on collective experiences, review of literature provided in earlier sections and workshop feedback collected:

a) basic needs of an ethical committee within an institution;

b) a typical ethical approval process (with examples from three different universities); and

c) the ways to obtain informed consent with some examples. This would give advice on preparing and training both researchers and research students in appropriately upholding ethical practices through ethical approval processes.

Setting up an institutional ethical committee (ECs)

Institutional Ethical Committees (ECs) are essential to govern every aspect of the activities undertaken by that institute. With regards to higher educational organisations, this is vital to establish ethical behaviour for students and staff to impart research, education and scholarly activities (or everything) they do. These committees should be knowledgeable about international laws relating to different fields of studies (such as science, medicine, business, finance, law, and social sciences). The advantages and disadvantages of institutional, subject specific or common (statutory) ECs are summarised in Fig.  2 . Some institutions have developed individual ECs linked to specific fields (or subject areas) whilst others have one institutional committee that overlooks the entire ethical behaviour and approval process. There is no clear preference between the two as both have their own advantages and disadvantages (see Fig. 2 ). Subject specific ECs are attractive to medical, law and business provisions, as it is perceived the members within respective committees would be able to understand the subject and therefore comprehend the need of the proposed research/activity (Kadam, 2012 ; Schnyder et al., 2018 ). However, others argue, due to this “ specificity ”, the committee would fail to forecast the wider implications of that application. On the other hand, university-wide ECs would look into the wider implications. Yet they find it difficult to understand the purpose and the specific applications of that research. Not everyone understands dynamics of all types of research methodologies, data collection, etc., and therefore there might be a chance of a proposal being rejected merely because the EC could not understand the research applications (Getz, 1990 ).

Summary of advantages and disadvantages of three different forms of ethical committees

[N/B for Fig. 2 : Examples of different types of ethical application procedures and forms used were discussed with the workshop attendees to enhance their understanding of the differences. GDPR = General Data Protection Regulation].

Although we recommend a designated EC with relevant professional, academic and ethical expertise to deal with particular types of applications, the membership (of any EC) should include some non-experts who would represent the wider community (see above). Having some non-experts in EC would not only help the researchers to consider explaining their research in layperson’s terms (by thinking outside the box) but also would ensure efficiency without compromising participants/animal safety. They may even help to address the common ethical issues outside research culture. Some UK universities usually offer this membership to a clergy, councillor or a parliamentarian who does not have any links to the institutions. Most importantly, it is vital for any EC members to undertake further training in addition to previous experience in the relevant field of research ethics.

Another issue that raises concerns is multi-centre research, involving several institutions, where institutionalised ethical approvals are needed from each partner. In some cases, such as clinical research within the UK, a common statutory EC called National Health Services (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (NREC) is in place to cover research ethics involving all partner institutions (NHS, 2018 ). The process of obtaining approval from this type of EC takes time, therefore advanced planning is needed.

Ethics approval forms and process

During the workshop, we discussed some anonymised application forms obtained from open-access sources for qualitative and quantitative research as examples. Considering research ethics, for the purpose of understanding, we arbitrarily divided this in two categories; research based on (a) quantitative and (b) qualitative methodologies. As their name suggests their research approach is extremely different from each other. The discussion elicited how ECs devise different types of ethical application form/questions. As for qualitative research, these are often conducted as “face-to-face” interviews, which would have implications on volunteer anonymity.

Furthermore, discussions posited when the interviews are replaced by on-line surveys, they have to be administered through registered university staff to maintain confidentiality. This becomes difficult when the research is a multi-centre study. These types of issues are also common in medical research regarding participants’ anonymity, confidentially, and above all their right to withdraw consent to be involved in research.

Storing and protecting data collected in the process of the study is also a point of consideration when applying for approval.

Finally, the ethical processes of invasive (involving human/animals) and non-invasive research (questionnaire based) may slightly differ from one another. Following research areas are considered as investigations that need ethical approval:

research that involves human participants (see below)

use of the ‘products’ of human participants (see below)

work that potentially impacts on humans (see below)

research that involves animals

In addition, it is important to provide a disclaimer even if an ethical approval is deemed unnecessary. Following word cloud (Fig.  3 ) shows the important variables that need to be considered at the brainstorming stage before an ethical application. It is worth noting the importance of proactive planning predicting the “unexpected” during different phases of a research project (such as planning, execution, publication, and future directions). Some applications (such as working with vulnerable individuals or children) will require safety protection clearance (such as DBS - Disclosure and Barring Service, commonly obtained from the local police). Please see section on Research involving Humans - Informed consents for further discussions.

Examples of important variables that need to be considered for an ethical approval

It is also imperative to report or re-apply for ethical approval for any minor or major post-approval changes to original proposals made. In case of methodological changes, evidence of risk assessments for changes and/or COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations) should also be given. Likewise, any new collaborative partners or removal of researchers should also be notified to the IEAC.

Other findings include:

in case of complete changes in the project, the research must be stopped and new approval should be seeked,

in case of noticing any adverse effects to project participants (human or non-human), these should also be notified to the committee for appropriate clearance to continue the work, and

the completion of the project must also be notified with the indication whether the researchers may restart the project at a later stage.

Research involving humans - informed consents

While discussing research involving humans and based on literature review, findings highlight the human subjects/volunteers must willingly participate in research after being adequately informed about the project. Therefore, research involving humans and animals takes precedence in obtaining ethical clearance and its strict adherence, one of which is providing a participant information sheet/leaflet. This sheet should contain a full explanation about the research that is being carried out and be given out in lay-person’s terms in writing (Manti and Licari 2018 ; Hardicre 2014 ). Measures should also be in place to explain and clarify any doubts from the participants. In addition, there should be a clear statement on how the participants’ anonymity is protected. We provide below some example questions below to help the researchers to write this participant information sheet:

What is the purpose of the study?

Why have they been chosen?

What will happen if they take part?

What do they have to do?

What happens when the research stops?

What if something goes wrong?

What will happen to the results of the research study?

Will taking part be kept confidential?

How to handle “vulnerable” participants?

How to mitigate risks to participants?

Many institutional ethics committees expect the researchers to produce a FAQ (frequently asked questions) in addition to the information about research. Most importantly, the researchers also need to provide an informed consent form, which should be signed by each human participant. The five elements identified that are needed to be considered for an informed consent statement are summarized in Fig.  4 below (slightly modified from the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects ( 2018 ) - Diffn website c ).

Five basic elements to consider for an informed consent [figure adapted from Diffn website c ]

The informed consent form should always contain a clause for the participant to withdraw their consent at any time. Should this happen all the data from that participant should be eliminated from the study without affecting their anonymity.

Typical research ethics approval process

In this section, we provide an example flow chart explaining how researchers may choose the appropriate application and process, as highlighted in Fig.  5 . However, it is imperative to note here that these are examples only and some institutions may have one unified application with separate sections to demarcate qualitative and quantitative research criteria.

Typical ethical approval processes for quantitative and qualitative research. [N/B for Fig. 5 - This simplified flow chart shows that fundamental process for invasive and non-invasive EC application is same, the routes and the requirements for additional information are slightly different]

Once the ethical application is submitted, the EC should ensure a clear approval procedure with distinctly defined timeline. An example flow chart showing the procedure for an ethical approval was obtained from University of Leicester as open-access. This is presented in Fig.  6 . Further examples of the ethical approval process and governance were discussed in the workshop.

An example ethical approval procedures conducted within University of Leicester (Figure obtained from the University of Leicester research pages - Difn website d - open access)

Strategies for ethics educations for students

Student education on the importance of ethics and ethical behaviour in research and scholarly activities is extremely essential. Literature posits in the area of medical research that many universities are incorporating ethics in post-graduate degrees but when it comes to undergraduate degrees, there is less appetite to deliver modules or even lectures focussing on research ethics (Seymour et al., 2004 ; Willison and O’Regan, 2007 ). This may be due to the fact that undergraduate degree structure does not really focus on research (DePasse et al., 2016 ). However, as Orr ( 2018 ) suggested, institutions should focus more on educating all students about ethics/ethical behaviour and their importance in research, than enforcing punitive measures for unethical behaviour. Therefore, as an advisory committee, and based on our preliminary literature survey and workshop results, we strongly recommend incorporating ethical education within undergraduate curriculum. Looking at those institutions which focus on ethical education for both under-and postgraduate courses, their approaches are either (a) a lecture-based delivery, (b) case study based approach or (c) a combined delivery starting with a lecture on basic principles of ethics followed by generating a debate based discussion using interesting case studies. The combined method seems much more effective than the other two as per our findings as explained next.

As many academics who have been involved in teaching ethics and/or research ethics agree, the underlying principles of ethics is often perceived as a boring subject. Therefore, lecture-based delivery may not be suitable. On the other hand, a debate based approach, though attractive and instantly generates student interest, cannot be effective without students understanding the underlying basic principles. In addition, when selecting case studies, it would be advisable to choose cases addressing all different types of ethical dilemmas. As an advisory group within ENAI, we are in the process of collating supporting materials to help to develop institutional policies, creating advisory documents to help in obtaining ethical approvals, and teaching materials to enhance debate-based lesson plans that can be used by the member and other institutions.

Concluding remarks

In summary, our literature survey and workshop findings highlight that researchers should accept that ethics underpins everything we do, especially in research. Although ethical approval is tedious, it is an imperative process in which proactive thinking is essential to identify ethical issues that might affect the project. Our findings further lead us to state that the ethical approval process differs from institution to institution and we strongly recommend the researchers to follow the institutional guidelines and their underlying ethical principles. The ENAI workshop in Vilnius highlighted the importance of ethical governance by establishing ECs, discussed different types of ECs and procedures with some examples and highlighted the importance of student education to impart ethical culture within research communities, an area that needs further study as future scope.

Declarations

The manuscript was entirely written by the corresponding author with contributions from co-authors who have also taken part in the delivery of the workshop. Authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article. We can also confirm that there are no potential competing interests with other organisations.

Availability of data and materials

Authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

Abbreviations

ALL European academics

Australian research council

Biotechnology and biological sciences research council

Canadian institutes for health research

Committee of publication ethics

Ethical committee

European network of academic integrity

Economic and social research council

International convention for the protection of animals

institutional ethical advisory committee

Institutional review board

Immaculata university of Pennsylvania

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender

Medical research council)

National health services

National health services nih national institute of health (NIH)

National institute of clinical care excellence

National health and medical research council

Natural sciences and engineering research council

National research ethics committee

National statement on ethical conduct in human research

Responsible research practice

Social sciences and humanities research council

Tri-council policy statement

World Organization for animal health

Universities Australia

UK-research and innovation

US office for human research protections

Alba S, Lenglet A, Verdonck K, Roth J, Patil R, Mendoza W, Juvekar S, Rumisha SF (2020) Bridging research integrity and global health epidemiology (BRIDGE) guidelines: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Glob Health 5(10):e003237. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003237

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson MS (2011) Research misconduct and misbehaviour. In: Bertram Gallant T (ed) Creating the ethical academy: a systems approach to understanding misconduct and empowering change in higher education. Routledge, pp 83–96

BBC News. (2019). Birmingham school LGBT LESSONS PROTEST investigated. March 8, 2019. Retrieved February 14, 2021, available online. URL: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-47498446

Children’s Rights Alliance for England. (2005). R (Williamson and others) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Session 2004–05. [2005] UKHL 15. Available Online. URL: http://www.crae.org.uk/media/33624/R-Williamson-and-others-v-Secretary-of-State-for-Education-and-Employment.pdf

Council of Europe. (2014). Texts of the Council of Europe on bioethical matters. Available Online. https://www.coe.int/t/dg3/healthbioethic/Texts_and_documents/INF_2014_5_vol_II_textes_%20CoE_%20bio%C3%A9thique_E%20(2).pdf

Dellaportas S, Kanapathippillai S, Khan, A and Leung, P. (2014). Ethics education in the Australian accounting curriculum: a longitudinal study examining barriers and enablers. 362–382. Available Online. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2014.930694 , 23, 4, 362, 382

DePasse JM, Palumbo MA, Eberson CP, Daniels AH (2016) Academic characteristics of orthopaedic surgery residency applicants from 2007 to 2014. JBJS 98(9):788–795. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.00222

Desmond H, Dierickx K (2021) Research integrity codes of conduct in Europe: understanding the divergences. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12851

Difn website a - National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NSECHR). (2018). Available Online. URL: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-responsible-conduct-research-2018

Difn website b - Enago academy Importance of Ethics Committees in Scholarly Research (2020, October 26). Available online. URL: https://www.enago.com/academy/importance-of-ethics-committees-in-scholarly-research/

Difn website c - Ethics vs Morals - Difference and Comparison. Retrieved July 14, 2020. Available online. URL: https://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

Difn website d - University of Leicester. (2015). Staff ethics approval flowchart. May 1, 2015. Retrieved July 14, 2020. Available Online. URL: https://www2.le.ac.uk/institution/ethics/images/ethics-approval-flowchart/view

European Commission - Facilitating Research Excellence in FP7 (2013) https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/89888/ethics-for-researchers_en.pdf

European Network for Academic Integrity. (2018). Ethical advisory group. Retrieved February 14, 2021. Available online. URL: http://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/wg-ethical/

Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. (2018). Retrieved February 14, 2021. Available Online. URL: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/19/2017-01058/federal-policy-for-the-protection-of-human-subjects#p-855

Flite, CA and Harman, LB. (2013). Code of ethics: principles for ethical leadership Perspect Health Inf Mana; 10(winter): 1d. PMID: 23346028

Fouka G, Mantzorou M (2011) What are the major ethical issues in conducting research? Is there a conflict between the research ethics and the nature of nursing. Health Sci J 5(1) Available Online. URL: https://www.hsj.gr/medicine/what-are-the-major-ethical-issues-in-conducting-research-is-there-a-conflict-between-the-research-ethics-and-the-nature-of-nursing.php?aid=3485

Fox G (2017) History and ethical principles. The University of Miami and the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) Program URL  https://silo.tips/download/chapter-1-history-and-ethical-principles # (Available Online)

Getz KA (1990) International codes of conduct: An analysis of ethical reasoning. J Bus Ethics 9(7):567–577

Ghooi RB (2011) The nuremberg code–a critique. Perspect Clin Res 2(2):72–76. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.80371

Hardicre, J. (2014) Valid informed consent in research: an introduction Br J Nurs 23(11). https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2014.23.11.564 , 567

Hazard, GC (Jr). (1994). Law, morals, and ethics. Yale law school legal scholarship repository. Faculty Scholarship Series. Yale University. Available Online. URL: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3322&context=fss_papers

Israel, M., & Drenth, P. (2016). Research integrity: perspectives from Australia and Netherlands. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 789–808). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_64

Kadam R (2012) Proactive role for ethics committees. Indian J Med Ethics 9(3):216. https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2012.072

Kant I (2018) The metaphysics of morals. Cambridge University Press, UK https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316091388

Kayser-Jones J (2003) Continuing to conduct research in nursing homes despite controversial findings: reflections by a research scientist. Qual Health Res 13(1):114–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732302239414

Kotecha JA, Manca D, Lambert-Lanning A, Keshavjee K, Drummond N, Godwin M, Greiver M, Putnam W, Lussier M-T, Birtwhistle R (2011) Ethics and privacy issues of a practice-based surveillance system: need for a national-level institutional research ethics board and consent standards. Can Fam physician 57(10):1165–1173.  https://europepmc.org/article/pmc/pmc3192088

Kuyare, MS., Taur, SR., Thatte, U. (2014). Establishing institutional ethics committees: challenges and solutions–a review of the literature. Indian J Med Ethics. https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2014.047

LaFollette, H. (2007). Ethics in practice (3rd edition). Blackwell

Larry RC (1982) The teaching of ethics and moral values in teaching. J High Educ 53(3):296–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1982.11780455

Manti S, Licari A (2018) How to obtain informed consent for research. Breathe (Sheff) 14(2):145–152. https://doi.org/10.1183/20734735.001918

Mulholland MW, Bell J (2005) Research Governance and Research Funding in the USA: What the academic surgeon needs to know. J R Soc Med 98(11):496–502. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.98.11.496

National Institute of Health (NIH) Ethics in Clinical Research. n.d. Available Online. URL: https://clinicalcenter.nih.gov/recruit/ethics.html

NHS (2018) Flagged Research Ethics Committees. Retrieved February 14, 2021. Available online. URL: https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/committees-and-services/res-and-recs/flagged-research-ethics-committees/

NICE (2018) Research governance policy. Retrieved February 14, 2021. Available online. URL: https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/science-policy-and-research/research-governance-policy.pdf

Orr, J. (2018). Developing a campus academic integrity education seminar. J Acad Ethics 16(3), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9304-7

Quinn, M. (2011). Introduction to Ethics. Ethics for an Information Age. 4th Ed. Ch 2. 53–108. Pearson. UK

Resnik. (2020). What is ethics in Research & why is it Important? Available Online. URL: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm

Schnyder S, Starring H, Fury M, Mora A, Leonardi C, Dasa V (2018) The formation of a medical student research committee and its impact on involvement in departmental research. Med Educ Online 23(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2018.1424449

Seymour E, Hunter AB, Laursen SL, DeAntoni T (2004) Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: first findings from a three-year study. Sci Educ 88(4):493–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10131

Shamoo AE, Irving DN (1993) Accountability in research using persons with mental illness. Account Res 3(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989629308573826

Shaw, S., Boynton, PM., and Greenhalgh, T. (2005). Research governance: where did it come from, what does it mean? Research governance framework for health and social care, 2nd ed. London: Department of Health. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.98.11.496 , 98, 11, 496, 502

Book   Google Scholar  

Speight, JG. (2016) Ethics in the university |DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119346449 scrivener publishing LLC

Stephenson GK, Jones GA, Fick E, Begin-Caouette O, Taiyeb A, Metcalfe A (2020) What’s the protocol? Canadian university research ethics boards and variations in implementing tri-Council policy. Can J Higher Educ 50(1)1): 68–81

Surbhi, S. (2015). Difference between morals and ethics [weblog]. March 25, 2015. Retrieved February 14, 2021. Available Online. URL: http://keydifferences.com/difference-between-morals-and-ethics.html

The Belmont Report (1979). Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Retrieved February 14, 2021. Available online. URL: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/the-belmont-report-508c_FINAL.pdf

The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. (2020). Nicholas Steneck and Tony Mayer, Co-chairs, 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity; Melissa Anderson, Chair, Organizing Committee, 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity. Retrieved February 14, 2021. Available online. URL: https://wcrif.org/documents/327-singapore-statement-a4size/file

Warwick K (2003) Cyborg morals, cyborg values, cyborg ethics. Ethics Inf Technol 5(3):131–137. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ETIN.0000006870.65865.cf

Weindling P (2001) The origins of informed consent: the international scientific commission on medical war crimes, and the Nuremberg code. Bull Hist Med 75(1):37–71. https://doi.org/10.1353/bhm.2001.0049

WHO. (2009). Research ethics committees Basic concepts for capacity-building. Retrieved February 14, 2021. Available online. URL: https://www.who.int/ethics/Ethics_basic_concepts_ENG.pdf

WHO. (2021). Chronological list of publications. Retrieved February 14, 2021. Available online. URL: https://www.who.int/ethics/publications/year/en/

Willison, J. and O’Regan, K. (2007). Commonly known, commonly not known, totally unknown: a framework for students becoming researchers. High Educ Res Dev 26(4). 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701658609

Žukauskas P, Vveinhardt J, and Andriukaitienė R. (2018). Research Ethics In book: Management Culture and Corporate Social Responsibility Eds Jolita Vveinhardt IntechOpenEditors DOI: https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70629 , 2018

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors wish to thank the organising committee of the 5th international conference named plagiarism across Europe and beyond, in Vilnius, Lithuania for accepting this paper to be presented in the conference.

Not applicable as this is an independent study, which is not funded by any internal or external bodies.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Human Sciences, University of Derby, DE22 1, Derby, GB, UK

Shivadas Sivasubramaniam

Department of Informatics, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská, 1665, Brno, Czechia

Dita Henek Dlabolová

Centre for Academic Integrity in the UAE, Faculty of Engineering & Information Sciences, University of Wollongong in Dubai, Dubai, UAE

Veronika Kralikova & Zeenath Reza Khan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The manuscript was entirely written by the corresponding author with contributions from co-authors who have equally contributed to presentation of this paper in the 5th international conference named plagiarism across Europe and beyond, in Vilnius, Lithuania. Authors have equally contributed for the information collection, which were then summarised as narrative explanations by the Corresponding author and Dr. Zeenath Reza Khan. Then checked and verified by Dr. Dlabolova and Ms. Králíková. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shivadas Sivasubramaniam .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

We can also confirm that there are no potential competing interest with other organisations.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sivasubramaniam, S., Dlabolová, D.H., Kralikova, V. et al. Assisting you to advance with ethics in research: an introduction to ethical governance and application procedures. Int J Educ Integr 17 , 14 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00078-6

Download citation

Received : 17 July 2020

Accepted : 25 April 2021

Published : 13 July 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00078-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Higher education
• Ethical codes
• Ethics committee
• Post-secondary education
• Institutional policies
• Research ethics

International Journal for Educational Integrity

ISSN: 1833-2595

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music and Media
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business Ethics
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

6 Ethical Decision Making

Geoff Lindsay, Ph.D., is Director of the Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research at the University of Warwick, UK where he is also Professor of Educational Psychology and Special Needs Education.

• Published: 21 November 2012
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter explores the use of ethical codes to support ethical decision making. The nature of codes is examined with reference to ethical principles, domains of practice, cultural factors, and function. Distinctions are made between using codes for developmental/educative purposes, as working to assist decision making, as a basis for regulatory bodies’ decision making, and as public statements. Three levels of complexity for decision making are proposed, from relatively automatic responses based on experience to analysis of ethical dilemmas. A model of decision making is proposed, drawing upon that of the Canadian Psychological Association. Its use is exemplified by a vignette describing decision making using the European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations’ Meta-Code of ethics.

Psychological practice requires a number of discrete but overlapping sets of knowledge and skills. This applies whether the psychologist is engaged in research or professional practice, for example, as a clinical or educational (school) psychologist. There are a number of common elements across the different branches of psychological practice. One example is their foundation in a scientific approach to the discipline, whereby research findings are fundamental to forming the basis of practice. In the United States, following the Boulder Conference of 1949, the term scientist-practitioner captured this approach. Another common element is the necessity to practice ethically, in whatever domain of the discipline.

Applied psychological practice is characterized by particular elements specific to a subdiscipline within the overall applied discipline of psychology, and also a large degree of commonality at a superordinate level across all subdisciplines. For example, all psychologist practitioners are trained in psychometric principles and the nature of methods of assessment; furthermore, assessment in a broad sense typically forms an important element of practice of a psychologist whatever his or her specific role. At the level of subgroups of practitioners, such as forensic psychologists, clinical psychologists, or counseling psychologists, these general domains are differentiated into more specific aspects. For example, specific assessment measures will vary to reflect different demands. These relate to domains of practice (e.g., clinic, factory, school), age of client (e.g., child, adult) and the purpose of the intervention (e.g., assessment alone compared with assessment linked directly to a treatment program, whether direct intervention or indirect, such as consultancy).

Also fundamental to psychological practice is decision making. The focus of this chapter is ethical decision making but there are overlaps with, for example, technical questions regarding practice. One instance concerns the technical quality of the methods to be used. The question of fitness for purpose is important here. Issues of reliability and validity, for example, are essentially technical issues and psychologists must be aware of these factors when using any instruments. However, there is also an ethical dimension concerning the use of measures which includes, but goes beyond, their technical quality.

This chapter explores ethical decision making. A worked example is provided in the latter section, drawing upon the European Federation of Psychologists Associations’ (EFPA) Meta-Code of ethics. I argue that an ethical code is an important and useful aid to ethical decision making, but also that it is not sufficient. Furthermore, ethical codes vary in their conceptual framework, organization, and level of detail. Consequently, I first explore the nature of ethical codes and the implications for ethical decision making. I then set out an ethical decision-making model before using a vignette of an ethical dilemma as a worked example.

The Nature of Ethical Codes

The purpose of ethical codes.

The existence of an ethical code may be seen as one of the necessary characteristics of a profession. It is a clear indicator that its practitioners are expected to meet ethical standards. A second factor is more variable, namely that the ethical code forms the basis upon which the practitioner will also be held to account for his/her practice. Historically, using ethical codes for regulatory purposes has not necessarily followed the former, or at least not until some time later. This is because the holding to account of an individual requires a system of investigation, evaluation, and administration of sanctions as appropriate.

Ethical codes may be used to achieve different ends: I suggest that there are four main purposes. First, the code may be educative . Psychologists use the code to develop their understanding of the ethical dimensions of their practice. This is an important element in the initial training of psychologists, as researchers or applied professional practitioners. Both philosophical and practical issues may be explored to assist each psychologist to develop ethical awareness and develop the basis for ethical practice. However, initial training cannot provide all the preparation a professional needs. Rather, it is more useful to consider a long-term process of professional development, starting with initial training but continuing throughout a professional's working life.

The second purpose of an ethical code, therefore, is as a working tool . Initial training will lay a foundation but it is the engagement as a practitioner that leads to the need for psychologists to use ethical decision making in a real life setting. Interestingly, this is not always recognized. In the 1980s, Pope and Vetter ( 1992 ) undertook a study which asked members of the American Psychological Association (APA) about ethical dilemmas encountered in the previous year or two. It is of interest that 134 of the 679 who responded to the survey claimed that they had not had an ethically troubling issue to deal with over that period. This paradigm was utilized in the United Kingdom by Lindsay and Colley ( 1995 ) with members of the British Psychological Society (BPS), and also by Lindsay and Clarkson ( 1999 ) with U.K. psychotherapists. Subsequently, researchers from various other countries also replicated the study. In all cases, a sizeable minority of respondents decided that they had not had an ethically troubling incident to deal with in the previous year or two. (NB: It may also be speculated that a proportion of the nonrespondents to each survey had a similar view and so did not take part.)

The third purpose of an ethical code is to provide a basis for regulatory bodies to consider allegations of unethical conduct by a psychologist. For example, the BPS was until 2009 the nonstatutory regulatory body of member psychologists in the United Kingdom. Complaints about a psychologist that were heard by a disciplinary committee were presented as violations of the BPS ethical code, rather than in terms of the behavior per se, which became the specification of the substance for offending the ethical code. It is often argued that for this purpose it is preferable to have a code that is as specific as possible, so that it is more clear whether an offense has been committed or not (see below.) The problem with this approach, however, is that increased specificity brings its own limitations, as the allegation must also be framed specifically. Compare this with a charge of “bringing the profession into disrepute” as a result of specified activities, which may provide more freedom of interpretation for the disciplinary committee/tribunal.

Finally, the fourth purpose of an ethical code for psychologists is to provide a public document for use by nonpsychologists. This may be essentially for information, to inform the lay public that psychologists have an ethical code (important in itself) and what it comprises. Or, it may assist a client who is unsure what to expect of a psychologist's practice. That is, there is a political purpose to indicate the status of a profession, in that it has an ethical code and also a purpose of direct public benefit to provide information to those who may have an interest. These include the public who want to know the ethical standards expected of the profession with whom they will deal, and any person who has concern about the ethical behavior of the professional with whom they are or have been working.

The Style of Ethical Codes

Ethical codes vary in style and content. When the EFPA Meta-Code was being developed, I reviewed seven national codes and identified both similarities (e.g., all addressed confidentiality) but also significant variations (e.g., guidance about billing, which is not relevant in state-funded systems [Lindsay, 1992 ]). Some variations, therefore, concern specific content domains, while others are more fundamental.

Aspirational vs. “Bottom Line.” Some codes provide guidance designed to help the psychologist to develop “best practice.” Such aspirational codes seek to raise psychologists’ sights to the highest ethical standards to which they should always aspire. An alternative is to identify the “bottom line” below which practice should not fall. The former is especially challenging, of course, but has the benefit of stressing positive standards. The latter may be particularly helpful in the early days of a psychologist's practice. However, there is the danger of seeing these standards not as a baseline from which to develop but rather a “good enough” level at which to remain. A developmental perspective may see the “bottom line” approach as level 1, to establish basic ethical practice, to be followed throughout the psychologist's career by an aspirational approach, always seeking optimal practice. This is an appropriate model for a psychologist's development, but an ethical code, as a written document, is not so easily constructed to meet each purpose unless the continuing professional development rationale is clearly woven through the document.

Principles and Standards

The EFPA Meta-Code and the ethical codes of the APA ( 2002 ) and Canadian Psychological Association (CPA, 2003 ) each comprise ethical principles followed by exemplifications of these through specifications or standards. The Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists (International Union of Psychological Science and International Association of Applied Psychology, 2008 ) also follows this model, whereas the previous BPS ethical code (actually a “code of conduct”: British Psychological Society, 1985 ) comprised five sections without any statement of specific ethical principles. The influence of the EFPA Meta-Code has also led to the codes of its constituent national associations following the same model, as it is an EFPA requirement that a national code must be in accord with the Meta-Code. Although this requirement is essentially one of compliance with the content, many EFPA member associations have revised their codes to follow the same organizational model as the Meta-Code, including the BPS ( 2009 ). However, this is still work in progress and many associations within the EFPA are still working to develop other codes. At the 2009 General Assembly 11, the codes of national associations of the 35 members were approved as compliant with the Meta-Code. Also, new associations’ codes are judged for their compliance with the Meta-Code when a national association seeks membership, but not all are structured in the form of principles and standards. For example, the Russian association was also accepted in 2009, although its code is organized in sections that do not match the principle-driven structure of the Meta-Code; the Russian association is expected to develop its code further to be fully compliant.

This is not simply a cosmetic issue. Rather, the organization and structure of an ethical code are important dimensions in addition to the code's content, and have implications for its use as an aid to ethical decision making. Codes that are driven by ethical principles have a coherent, intellectually driven structure. The specification of particular standards follows from the principles. Without this approach an ethical code may be rather more pragmatic, including elements which have a salience, but perhaps one that is partial for the profession as a whole, being rather more specific to particular groups of psychologists. For example, some such codes, from countries developing their systems of applied psychological practice, tend to focus on clinical psychology, as this is often the most developed. Starting with principles helps to ensure that the ethical guidance is widely applicable, especially if the standards are not written at too high a level of specificity. Clinical psychology is not only likely to be the subdiscipline developed earliest in countries with an emerging psychological practitioner community, it is also typically the largest grouping of the discipline in countries in which there is a more established profession of psychologist practitioners. This can lead to codes being developed to support practice in this domain at the expense, potentially, of other subdisciplines. However, the essential elements of psychological practice are largely generalizable, even if specifics such as location, actual measures, and particular interventions will vary between subdisciplines. This problem is not insurmountable, but organizing the ethical code around principles and their exemplifications provides a sound framework for inclusion of all current, and indeed potential, subdisciplines of psychologists.

Another reason to develop an ethical code which is principle-led is that there is less danger of it becoming outdated. Codes that are organized around specific behaviors may be exposed as a new development appears that was not previously the subject of a standard in the code. For example, the use of the Internet has raised many ethical issues (e.g., Eynon, Schroeder, & Fry, 2009 ). Lindsay ( 2008 , 2009 ) has explored the ethical challenges raised by states developing a concern for “national security,” and Koocher ( 2007 ) has provided a comprehensive overview of new ethical challenges facing psychologists. It is of interest that the EFPA Standing Committee on Ethics was able to develop guidance on the use of the Internet, using the Meta-Code as a foundation, with relatively little problem. The principles and the specifications were found to cover the ethical issues of Internet use and other methods of working at a distance (“telepsychology”).

Principles vs. Domains of Practice

Cultural Factors and Ethical Codes. Psychology cannot be “value-free.” It is applied in the context of a world of values and rights of individuals (Lindsay, 1995 ). Furthermore, values and rights may be areas for debate and disagreement. If values and rights vary, then moral absolutes are rare. Ethical codes must, therefore, reflect their societal and cultural context. Ethical codes are typically developed by expert committees of a psychological association. In this case, experienced psychologists draw upon experience and other codes to develop a new code; subsequent revisions are then made by a committee building upon the original code and experience gained from its use. This was not, however, the origin of the APA code. Rather, the first edition of the code was developed using critical incidents of ethical issues gleaned from practice (American Psychological Association, 1952 ). This helped to ensure the ecological validity of the ethical code: it was immersed in real practice.

The EFPA Meta-Code (see below) was developed by a specialist taskforce drawn from a number of constituent associations, to ensure that the expertise was drawn from across the whole of Europe. This reflected a recognition of the number of European states and their variety in many cultural dimensions. This inclusive approach was both philosophical and pragmatic: to optimize the appropriateness and usefulness of the Meta-Code for Europe as a whole. This raises a further issue concerning the breadth of material on which codes may draw, in addition to domains within psychology itself. In particular, it is important when developing an ethical code to ensure that the results reflect the cultural, religious, and ethnic diversity that exists in the constituency for which the code is designed. Some countries, at least until recently, have been highly homogeneous, whereas others (e.g., England) are characterized by a long tradition of immigration from many countries, bringing a diversity of cultures and languages. The Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists may be seen as the extreme case. Its development was specifically designed to be inclusive with the ad hoc development group comprising psychologists from across the world. Furthermore, cultural diversity, specificity, and sensitivity were all seen as fundamental issues to address.

Patterns of migration have varied across nations and time. The United States has a long tradition of immigration of a large number of specific groups, and more recently an issue of immigration particularly from its neighboring country, Mexico. The United Kingdom's tradition has been driven by its having had the British Empire (now Commonwealth). Citizens from many colonies had the right to move to the United Kingdom and exercised that right. In addition, the United Kingdom has been the host to groups of refugees seeking safety, escaping various forms of persecution (for example, the Huguenots and Jews from Europe and, more recently, many war zones in Eastern Europe, Africa, and beyond). Mainland Europe has had a different pattern: a long history of wars, invasions, annexing parts of states, and the creation of large groupings (e.g., Austrian-Hungarian empire, Yugoslavia) which later split. More recently the collapse of the USSR has resulted in its constituent states gaining greater autonomy, and hence a further increase in diversity.

Reasons for migration, therefore, vary, and this has implications for ethical codes. First, the specific groups that join a host country are important. These may be similar to or very different from the host country on key dimensions. Religion has been an important dimension, in particular the difference between the Protestant and Catholic Christian traditions. Now, Islam is an important religious tradition in many countries. In addition, the Jewish religion has been a significant, if minority, religious grouping across most of Europe and the United States. Second, there is a question of the status of the migrant group. Whereas some immigrate to take up high-status positions, many others come to escape economic hardship and violence. The latter often immigrate with little support and join a lower level of the socioeconomic strata, with lower levels of attributed status and esteem.

Associated with this issue of status at migration is the developmental trajectory of subsequent status. In some instances, the first or possibly second generation to be born in the new host country take available opportunities and tend to “merge” successfully into the dominant culture; in other cases, successor generations remain at a low socioeconomic level, not sharing the benefits of citizenship in an equitable manner.

These various cultural factors associated with the development of modern-day societies have a direct relevance to ethical codes. It is necessary to consider whether the cultural assumptions of the dominant culture that may be shaping the development of a new code are applicable to subgroups or new immigrant groups. One important dimension is the distinction between the primacy of the individual versus the group. The former is strong in Western, particularly capitalist, cultures with an emphasis on individual responsibility for one's own actions. Therapy in the Western tradition typically seeks to support the development and autonomy of the individual client, but this may clash with the expectations of a person from a culture that promotes the need of the group (family, village, etc.) rather than those of the individual.

It is also important to recognize that these are not simple patterns of variation. There are differences between but also within groups, whether religious, national, or cultural. It is not as easy as having a “cultural sensitivity” by undertaking broad, generalized knowledge of various groups. Rather, the challenge is to develop an ethical code that is appropriate to a diverse society; and this applies to the diversity among psychologists as well as among client groups.

Statutory Regulation

So far the emphasis has been on ethical codes developed by psychological associations. However, in countries where there is a statutory regulatory system for practitioners, that system may well be separate from that of the national association. Regulatory bodies have a different function from professional associations, and this has an impact on the nature of the code. In the United States and Canada, licensing of psychologists to practice is the responsibility of individual states and provinces. The Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) is the association of the licensing boards for individual states and provinces in the two countries. The ASPPB has a code of conduct (revised edition 2005) for use by individual state/province boards. In the foreword, Kim Jonason, ASPPB President, distinguishes an ethics code produced by a professional association from that of a regulator. The former is the association's own guidance for its members to protect the public, and it may have elements of a regulatory code of conduct, but these “Rules of conduct in a professional association ethics code may be less specific, however, than is desirable from a regulatory code.” Jonason goes on to note that the ethics code may also include advisory or aspirational as well as regulatory issues. The ASPPB code of conduct is designed to be specific and detailed. This approach is also taken in the United Kingdom by the new (since 2009) regulator of practitioner psychologists (not those who are engaged solely in research or teaching), namely the Health Professions Council (HPC). The HPC currently regulates a total of 16 “health professions,” of which psychology is the latest addition. The HPC has responsibility for approving training programs and dealing with complaints against its registrants: it is mandatory by law that a practitioner psychologist is registered with the HPC. Unless registered, use of a protected title, such as “clinical psychologist,” “forensic psychologist,” or “educational psychologist,” is illegal.

The HPC does not have an ethics code as such, but rather “Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics” (Health Professions Council, 2008 ).

There are no ethical principles specified. Rather, 14 standards are presented as required behaviors with narrative elaborations. These include:

You must respect the confidentiality of service users.

You must keep high standards of personal conduct.

You must get informed consent to give treatment (except in an emergency).

You must behave with honesty and integrity and make sure that your behavior does not change the public's confidence in your profession.

Inspection of these standards and their elaborations confirms that these are essentially absolutist statements of what a psychologist (or other HPC registrant) must do. This is an example of a “bottom line” approach to ethical codes indicating minimum standards of practice. There is no suggestion of aspiration. There is a lack of recognition of the subtleties of ethical decision making. Furthermore, the document has no content on ethics per se. The only reference to ethics is self-referential to the title of the document itself. Nevertheless, U.K. practitioner psychologists must comply with these standards. The BPS Code of Ethics and Conduct (British Psychological Society, 2009 ), by contrast, has been written to comply with the EFPA Meta-Code and presents ethical principles from the Meta-Code plus associated standards, just as the CPA and APA codes do for psychologists in Canada and the United States, respectively.

A system of ethical oversight separate from that of the psychological association may also exist for research ethics. In the United Kingdom, for example, research carried out in universities is subject to oversight by the institution's research ethics committee. Typically there may be several subcommittees to cover broad disciplinary domains (e.g., social sciences rather than psychology alone). The development of a formal research ethics approval system has been contested. Some regard it as over-bureaucratic and criticize its implementation, but others offer more strident fundamental critiques. Dingwall ( 2008 ), for example, argues that ethical regulation of research if fundamentally wrong. On the other hand, bodies such as the Economic and Social Research Council (n.d.) in the United Kingdom have produced an ethical framework that has been generally adopted by universities. Central to its conceptualization is the notion of degree of risk , as a major driver to ethical decision making. There are now attempts to develop a European approach to research ethics, partly in response to the large multistate research programs funded by the European Union (Fitzgerald, 2007 ).

Ethical Decision Making: Codes or Principles?

The previous sections have described the development of and variation in ethical codes. In the last section, I introduced a “joker” into the pack: a statutory set of guides for professional conduct, not emanating from psychologists. In this section I shall address a final question before considering examples of ethical decision making. Put simply, how is the individual psychologist expected to develop and implement ethical thinking and practice? I have explored a developmental approach, from the start of a career and initial training, through the career itself. But what will guide and support the development of ethical practice?

The CPA (1991, revised 2000) took a very clear decision on this many years ago. Their code is accompanied by extensive vignettes to assist in training and development of psychologists. The EFPA Standing Committee on Ethics also took this approach after the Meta-Code had been reviewed and its revision approved in 2005 (EFPA, 2005 ). The focus of activity switched to the development of guidance in the form of a book, Ethics for European Psychologists (Lindsay, Koene, øvreeide, & Lang, 2008 ). Written by long-standing members of the EFPA Standing Committee on Ethics, this was designed to provide discussion of the Meta-Code and extensive examples of dealing with ethical dilemmas by using the Meta-Code. In the United States, a number of texts have been produced over the past decade to support psychologists, some of which are based on the APA ethical code specifically (Fisher, 2003 ; Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 1998 ), and the APA has a fine tradition of publishing books on ethics (e.g., Bersoff, 2003 ). Its head of Ethics Office Stephen Behnke also publishes a monthly column in the APA Monitor , sent to all APA members, with examples to stimulate thinking about ethical decision making. There have also been capacity-developing activities supported by the APA, EFPA, and CPA directly, or by senior psychologists from the organizations, to promote ethical practice internationally and to assist newly developing psychological associations to develop their own ethical codes and to set up systems within the associations to support further development (e.g., Gaulthier, Lindsay, Korkut, & Behnke, 2009 ).

The approach advocated here, and exemplified by such initiatives, is to engage with ethical principles and then—by a process of exploration, reflection, and discussion, aided by information about past cases—to help psychologists to develop their own ethical thinking. This is, of course, very different from the model used by the United Kingdom's Health Professions Council, which sets out standards to be followed. A fundamental reason for the approach advocated here is that psychological practice is not always so clear-cut. For example, the exhortation to maintain confidentiality is a reasonable starting point, but professional life may throw up challenges to a categorical decision, the most commonly identified being the tension caused when information provided puts the client or another (or even the psychologist) at risk (Rae, Sullivan, Razo, & de Alba, 2009 ). For a useful introduction to the landmark case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976), see Bersoff ( 2003 ). That said, however, it is also important to stress that some ethical decisions are straightforward.

Consequently, in the next section I shall explore the question of models of ethical decision making and then move on to examples of such a decision-making model in practice, using the EFPA Meta-Code. I shall give examples of how an ethical code (the EFPA Meta-Code) may assist in decision making but not in a purely didactic manner; rather, by identifying the nature of the decisions and the decision-making process that will optimize ethical decision making.

Ethical Decision Making

Ethical decisions differ in their degree of complexity and challenge. Furthermore, the resources a psychologist is able to bring to the decision-making process will differ, especially with respect to prior experience and thinking about ethical issues. It is useful to consider ethical decisions operating at three levels.

At the first level, decision making is relatively automatic . The range of issues to be considered is narrow and the preferred options limited. Also, and an important dimension that will be considered at each level, the level of risk may be very low. An example is the selection of an appropriate measure for the assessment of a client where the selection is from a limited range of instruments whose technical quality is known to be acceptable. Another example may be the need to gain informed consent, which is an automatic request in a high proportion of work.

At the second level, the issue may not be quite so straightforward such that an automatic response is possible, but referring to the ethical code will provide a very helpful resource. Also, the process of reference to the code will itself provide the psychologist with the opportunity to ensure that all relevant ethical issues are covered.

The third level is the most challenging: true ethical dilemmas . Here, a decision may not be clear, possibly because different options appear to support one, but also to be in conflict with another ethical principle. Take for example the issue of gaining informed consent when a client is an adolescent. In which case should the parent give consent, the young person give consent, or should each give consent? What factors, such as developmental age, intellectual capacity, or the risk related to the focus of the concern, for example, and the legal framework, apply, and to what degree?

These three levels may be seen as the overall framework for a decision-making model. The main focus to be explored in detail below will be at level 3, where an elaborated model will be presented. With respect to levels 1 and 2 it is worth conceptualizing these as part of initial and very early career training. Frequent and focused discussions between trainee psychologist and supervisor/mentor, and also peer discussions between trainees, supported by knowledge of the ethical code, can provide a solid basis for automatic ethical decision making in a large proportion of the early work faced by newly qualified psychologists and during their professional training program. Also, this is the time to set up positive habits, three of which will be stressed here.

First, the ethical code should be seen as an important support tool, to be readily available to the psychologist for checking with respect to a particular challenge from practice. Second, this is the time to set up an expectation of consultation with another psychologist to discuss practice. Typically this is formalized during training and during the initial period of post-qualification practice by a specified system of supervision by a senior psychologist. However, this formal process varies greatly and is not evident or elaborated in many countries. Nevertheless, informed peer consultations can be set up to serve a similar purpose. It is important that the “other” psychologist is a “critical friend” and not simply somebody who will collude in uncritical agreement: this is unhelpful to professional development. This is important whether informal or formal systems apply. In the latter case, the psychologist must see these as professionally helpful and necessary, rather than bureaucratic processes to “tick boxes.”

The third process to be set up is that of reflection . The more complex and challenging the ethical challenge, the more that reflection will be needed in addition to any peer discussion. However, reflection is also important at levels 1 and 2. For example, too rigid a categorization of issues as having an “automatic” action may lead to overgeneralization outside the original range of specificity. Taking informed consent as an example, it may be that a psychologist's work typically requires the client to sign a form that confirms the client gives informed consent. But what should the psychologist do if the client states they do not wish to sign such a form? Reflection may include whether the form is really for client protection, or rather for the safeguarding of the psychologist in case of a client complaint. What are the factors relevant to the client's position? Is this really a position of strong autonomy, of a well-informed client operating their preference? Or is it an uncertain client who is taking a position that may not be in their best interest? The point here is that even with apparently automatic issues, variants may arise that require reflection. Therefore, reflection should be part of the overall decision-making model from level 1 onward, increasing in importance at level 3.

A Decision-Making Model

A number of decision-making models have been developed (see Pryzwansky & Wendt, 1999 , for a review). They vary in complexity, partly as some have built upon earlier models. This is a potential danger of which to be aware: if the decision-making model becomes too complex or time-consuming it is less likely to be used, or unacceptable shortcuts may be taken. The model presented here draws on a number of earlier models, especially that of the Canadian Psychological Association ( 2003 ). This has also been amended by the British Psychological Society in its most recent Code of Ethics and Conduct (British Psychological Society, 2009 ). The model is presented in Figure 6.1 .

1. The first stage is one of analysis. Recall, this elaborated model is expected typically to be limited to complex, challenging cases where ethical principles may be in conflict. Analysis, therefore, is presented as a single stage, rather than sequential as in some models, to stress that the different dimensions must be analyzed both in parallel and iteratively . Ethical principles are the first and driving domain, but the

An Ethical Decision-Making Model.

more detailed specifications of each principle are also important in a full analysis. These must also be considered in relation to questions of values and rights as they apply to those affected, directly and indirectly, by the potential decision. Also, the cultural context is crucial. Ethical codes vary in their sensitivity or recognition of the relevant cultural dimensions, so this needs explicitly to be brought into the analysis.

The distinction between ethical and legal matters is not simple . Unethical behavior may not necessarily be designated illegal in any particular country, but often it is necessary to take account of legal factors. For example, decisions on whether a young person may give informed consent, rather than that this must be the responsibility of the parent(s), is linked to the child's age and the country's legal definition of the age of majority, when independent judgments are recognized in law. It may also be linked to the concept of intellectual capacity rather than chronological age, as in England. However, from an ethical point of view the situation may be more subtle. Even if a parent is not legally required to give consent to a particular action by a psychologist, perhaps from an ethical perspective this would be judged important to secure, for example, recognizing the principle of respect (to the parent).

Finally among the elements in the analysis are those persons for whom the decision will have direct or indirect influence. This concerns the question of first and second order clients. In some cases the relationship of the psychologist is with a single client. Often, however, there may be more than one “client.” In some cases this is clear, for example family therapy, where the family is specified as client(s). In the case of a school referring a child for a psychological assessment and possible intervention, with the agreement and support of the parent(s), there are already three “clients”: the child, the parent(s) and “the school,” whether seen as an individual (the principal/head teacher) or a corporate body. Complexities also arise when dealing with industrial and commercial organizations about individuals or groups of individuals (e.g., personnel assessments), the military, and the prison/justice systems. The question of first and second order client is particularly important to clarify, along with the ethical considerations that follow. For example, is the commissioning company the first order client for psychometric data, with the individual the second order client? If so, does the individual have any right to access the results of the evaluation? Whose rights have primacy when a prisoner is evaluated on behalf of the prison/justice services? Does the psychologist have any say in the determination of these rights? Can the psychologist withdraw if it is judged that the lack of a prisoner's rights to information, for example, is unethical?

This stage of analysis, therefore, is essential in order to explore all of these different elements and their interrelationships. It is not uncommon, as a consequence, to identify different implications for different persons concerned, and an ethical decision-making process must result in these different implications being set out.

2. Having fully analyzed the issue, the psychologist must stand back and consider whether there is any degree of self-interest or bias that may be influencing the decision or, indeed, the analysis. Will a particular ethical decision be more advantageous for the psychologist? If so, is this by chance, or as an inappropriate element in the analysis and proposed decision? Some types of self-interest are clearly identifiable, including inappropriate financial gain or personal gratification through an inappropriate relationship. Others are more subtle and may relate to professional standing and prestige, for example. It is important to stress that the issue here is not whether the psychologist derives some form of gain, but whether it is identified, and hence transparent in the analysis and, if there is a gain, is it unethical? For example, a highly competent and ethical psychologist may gather a high reputation for his work: this is acceptable. A psychologist who gains a high reputation from providing the “right answer” for particular assessment enquiries would not be acting ethically if her results were skewed to the “right answer” category inappropriately.

3. Following this further analysis and reflection, proposed course(s) of action are required. Setting out a preferred option is often the easiest first step; alternatives may then be listed relative to the main proposal, identifying tensions that exist. An option appraisal may then follow, to check the original choice against possible alternatives and decide the action to be taken.

4. After the actions are set out, so next must be the potential impacts. These may be positive and/or negative, and for different persons in the scenario. Short-term impacts may differ from those in the long term. All of these will, of course, be judgments of the future, and their reliability limitations must be recognized. Again, these will need to be balanced one with another.

5. So far in this model, the psychologist has produced an elaborated analysis with transparent examination not only of the ethical issues but also matters of rights, values, and cultural issues, as well as the psychologist's own place in the scenario. Consultation with a peer may have occurred earlier in the process, and this is often advisable in order to optimize the analysis. In any case, whether that has occurred or not, now is a time for the psychologist to draw upon the involvement of another psychologist.

As noted above, a system of supervision may be in place, such that this process of consultancy with a peer is expected and built into practice. If not, an informal system is required. In whichever case, the role of the colleague is not simply to listen and concur, but also to question, challenge, and seek explanation and justification: to be a “critical friend.” To work well, this approach requires a sound relationship built on respect and objectivity and a recognition that this is normal practice: problems are more likely to arise if this is a rare process only undertaken when a practitioner is having difficulty, as defensiveness and reduced receptivity may occur. On the contrary, this should be an open, transparent, and supportive process designed to assist the psychologist to come to the best (not necessarily the only) decision that is available, given the evidence.

6. Following confirmation of the ethical decision, together with alternative actions if deemed appropriate, the psychologist confirms and implements the decision. At this point it is advisable that the decision will be recorded, backed up by the prior analysis, and with a brief report of the consultation with the colleague including disagreement if any. Such recording is useful for several reasons. There is a record if the psychologist must account for the actions taken but, in addition and importantly, this forms part of the accumulating self-development record and may provide a useful resource for the psychologist faced with a similar challenge at a later date.

7. Implementation may be a one-off event (e.g., an assessment report) or take place over time (e.g., a decision regarding certain characteristics of therapy). In either case, there is an obligation on the psychologist to monitor the effects of the ethical decision, just as the effects of the assessment or therapy will be monitored.

8. The psychologist should reflect on the total ethical decision-making process and its outcomes. The primary reason is to check against the impact on the client(s) involved, as identified in this analysis. In some cases there may be an indication that a revision could be helpful, which would need further consideration of the impact on others before action. The psychologist should also reflect on the lessons learned that will influence future practice. Just as experience with psychological instruments, for example, will shape later practice, so too should the ethical decision made. In this context it is worth stressing that not all decisions will in fact turn out to be “right” or “the best.” Despite high professionalism, careful analysis, and peer discussion, a reasonable decision may turn out to have deficiencies. This is a good reason for reflection: What, if anything, did I miss? What would I do differently next time; or even, was this a real outlier, and so very exceptional, and should not necessarily lead to a different action next time?

9. The final step in this ethical decision-making model is not typically found in other models. However, there is a benefit in sharing such vignettes with colleagues. Some psychological associations have a forum for presenting vignettes. The psychologist may be able to contribute, through teaching, to initial training of new practitioners or on continuing professional development courses. This is not to argue that every such case should be written up for presentation more widely, but rather to stress that it is an ethical stance to seek to disseminate ethical practice and to provide useful information and experience to colleagues.

Use of the EFPA Meta-Code

In this final section I shall provide a detailed example by means of a vignette of ethical decision making. Prior to that, I shall set the scene by presenting a brief history of the European Federation of Psychologists Associations’ Meta-Code and its present use.

In 1990, the EFPA 1 set up a task force whose first meeting was in Copenhagen. Our task was to create a European code of ethics. We quickly decided this was certainly impossible and probably unwelcome. A number of countries had an ethical code and would not necessarily wish to change it. Many countries in Europe, particularly in the east, did not have a code. We foresaw many practical problems trying to secure votes at national conferences for not only a new code, but one which had to be the same across many countries: a single amendment in one association would destroy the whole enterprise. We therefore redefined our task and spent the next 5 years creating the original Meta-Code approved at the General Assembly in Athens, Greece, 1995. The Task Force was then changed into a Standing Committee on Ethics, and during the next decade we reviewed the effectiveness of the Meta-Code. We found it to be very popular and, perhaps surprisingly, in need of minimal changes. The current revised Meta-Code was approved by the General Assembly in Granada, Spain, 2005.

The Meta-Code is unusual, as it was not designed as an ethical code for individual psychologists; rather, it specified what a national association code should cover. From the beginning, and with the benefit of a group comprising psychologists from all over Europe, we stressed the need for universality and recognition of cultural variations. We also decided at the start to develop a code based on four ethical principles, using the format you will see below. We developed specifications or standards to explicate in more detail the ethical issues derived from each principle. Furthermore, we stressed (see the opening sections of the Meta-Code) that other dimensions are important. All professional practice, we argued, must be conceptualized as a stage in the development of the professional relationship. Ethical principles often interacted and could be in conflict.

The Meta-Code became popular among many individual psychologists who did not have access to a national code in their own country. After 2005, the Standing Committee on Ethics decided on a program to disseminate ethical practice, the main outcome of which is the book, Ethics for European Psychologists (Lindsay, Koene, øvreeide, & Lang, 2008 ) written by four long-standing members of the Standing Committee. This has a large selection of vignettes of ethical issues.

This final section of the chapter provides an in depth example of the analysis of an ethical dilemma using the Meta-Code's four ethical principles and the related specifications/standards. The four principles are:

Respect for a Person's Rights and Dignity

Psychologists accord appropriate respect to and promote the development of the fundamental rights, dignity, and worth of all people. They respect the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, self-determination, and autonomy, consistent with the psychologist's other professional obligations and with the law.

Psychologists strive to ensure and maintain high standards of competence in their work. They recognize the boundaries of their particular competencies and the limitations of their expertise. They provide only those services and use only those techniques for which they are qualified by education, training, or experience.

Responsibility

Psychologists are aware of the professional and scientific responsibilities to their clients, to the community, and to the society in which they work and live. Psychologists avoid doing harm and are responsible for their own actions, and assure themselves, as far as possible, that their services are not misused.

Psychologists seek to promote integrity in the science, teaching, and practice of psychology. In these activities psychologists are honest, fair, and respectful of others. They attempt to clarify for relevant parties the roles they are performing and to function appropriately in accordance with those roles.

The example has been deliberately selected to emphasize the cultural dimensions of practice and how conflict can arise if this is not handled appropriately. The focus of this section is on stage 1 in the decision-making model above, the analysis of the ethical issues relevant to the presenting dilemma, as the previous section explored in detail the processes involved in the other stages of the model.

An Example of Decision Making with the EFPA Meta-Code

The rest of this chapter takes a vignette and considers how the Meta-Code may be used to aid ethical decision making. The most pertinent clauses (specifications) in the Meta-Code are considered:

A mental health service in a large (European/North American) city hires, for a temporary position, an Asian-trained male psychologist newly arrived in the country to provide mental health services in his native language to immigrants from his country of origin. The psychologist is a refugee himself, and is trying to obtain permission for his family to join him. He is deeply grateful for having been given the position in the mental health clinic.

After he has been on the job for six weeks, his supervisor reprimands him for visiting his clients in their homes and attending social functions in the immigrant community. She informs him that there is a strict policy about doing this because it is important to maintain good boundaries with clients and not enter into dual relationships with them. Also, she points out that he can see more clients in a day if he makes appointments to see his clients in the office.

The psychologist is very upset and not sure what to do. He feels great respect for persons in authority, and deep gratitude for having employment and money to send home to his family. He cannot afford to lose his employment. He was unable to explain his position to his supervisor. However, he lives in the immigrant community and knows that his people have very different beliefs about the nature of mental health problems and they find services in this country very strange.

He also knows that if he does not participate in community events, he will not be accepted by them and will not be able to help them.

He comes to you as an understanding friend and colleague. How can you help?

Process Issues. All four principles in the Meta-Code must be considered for salience, and will be discussed individually. But first there is also a need to consider process issues. The Meta-Code sets out the following key points:

Psychologists’ professional behavior must be considered within a professional role, characterized by the professional relationship.

Inequalities of knowledge and power always influence psychologists’ professional relationships with clients and colleagues.

The larger the inequality in the professional relationship and the greater the dependency of clients, the heavier is the responsibility of the professional psychologist.

The responsibilities of psychologists must be considered within the context of the stage of the professional relationship.

These four elements are presented separately in the Meta-Code and before discussing the principles, in order to provide a framework within which to interpret the application of ethical principles to the particular case.

The first statement refers to the professional role. However, in this case the boundary between professional and personal is somewhat blurred, although often this is not the case and the psychologist has a clear role. Note also the reference to “professional relationship.” When a psychologist works with a client there is always some form of professional (as opposed to personal) relationship. The nature of this relationship may vary, influenced by such factors as personal style and cultural norms. For example, we British are often regarded as “formal” in our professional behavior compared with some cultures. In the example below, cultural expectations of the nature and boundaries of the professional relationship are important.

Second, the psychologist must appreciate the element of power that is always present in a professional relationship. This is typically viewed as the psychologist being more powerful, and in one respect at least this is certainly the case. The psychologist is the one with the formal power by nature of the role, and this brings with it important responsibilities not to abuse that power. However, in practice there may also be subtle (and even not so subtle) additional power dynamics. For example, perhaps the head teacher/principal of a school overtly says that they want to assist a student but the agenda may also include seeking to influence the psychologist into decisions that remove the young person from the school (“for the good of the others”). Hence, power must be recognized as a complex issue, and inequalities of power may operate in different ways. Ultimately, however, it is the psychologist who has the responsibility to act ethically after appropriate analysis.

Third, the degree of power inequality must be identified: contrast the distressed client of limited resources seeking a psychologist's help with the school principal mentioned above, or the fund-holding head of a company who could influence access to future contracts for the psychologist depending, perhaps, on the outcome of the presenting case.

Finally, there is the question of the stage of the professional relationship. Sometimes this is limited and somewhat transitory, as in the instance of a single assessment session. Other times the psychologist may work with a client over weeks or years, for example as a therapist or a psychologist working with children who maintains engagement throughout childhood and/or adolescence. These examples indicate the likelihood of different types of relationships including degrees of professional intimacy (the detailed knowledge of the client's history, their hopes and fears, their personal views shared with a trusted psychologist over the years, perhaps changing over time) and dependency: clients (or parents of a primary client) may come to rely on the psychologist, beyond the main focus of the psychologist's involvement, to provide support and advice.

In this vignette, the expectations of the professional relationship are central. Boundary issues are not so straightforward. Power inequalities are also important— between the psychologist and supervisor, his clients, and the community. With respect to level of inequality the vignette provides an opportunity not only to think this out as a psychologist–client issue but also as a supervisor–psychologist issue. This stresses again the complexity of such dilemmas, and also the need to be comprehensive in consideration of such factors. Finally, stage of relationship is also important, as the psychologist in the vignette is a recent arrival not only in the psychological service but also in the country (and is a temporary employee), and so there are issues of new learning by all concerned. Both interpretation of actions and judgments of their meaning from an ethical perspective are influenced by the stage of the relationship of the psychologist with a client and, in this vignette, particularly with the supervisor.

Now, let us consider the relevance of each principle to the vignette presented above. In the analysis I shall propose how specifications of each principle may be relevant to decision making in this case.

General Respect

Awareness of and respect for the knowledge, insight, experience and areas of expertise of clients, relevant third parties, colleagues, students, and the general public.

This psychologist, by nature of his cultural background, had experience and insights not shared by the supervisor. These could provide important assistance to practice. Thus, even though he is new and of limited experience in his new job, respect for what he potentially has to offer is necessary.

Awareness of individual, cultural, and role differences, including those due to disability, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, language and socioeconomic status.

This supervisor may be aware and welcoming of the psychologist's potential to contribute to service delivery on the basis of his linguistic competence. Unfortunately, she does not demonstrate awareness of or sensitivity to cultural differences relating to ethnicity—it may be the case that religious differences are also present. Not only is this problematic with respect to her dealings with the psychologist, it is also potentially a missed opportunity to learn from him and his engagement with the community.

Avoidance of practices which are the result of unfair bias and may lead to unjust discrimination.

The supervisor may consider she is simply treating the psychologist like everyone else—“rules are rules” and the service has a set of procedures and protocols. This may be so, but equality does not necessarily mean sameness. In this case, although unintended, the psychologist's strengths are not recognized sufficiently and the instructions do impose a restriction on what he might reasonably regard as appropriate behavior. Consequently, unjust discrimination occurs.

Ethical Awareness

Obligation to have a good knowledge of ethics, including the Ethical Code, and the integration of ethical issues with professional practice.

Both the supervisor and psychologist would do well to consider this specification. It appears from what has been analyzed so far that the supervisor is not sufficiently aware of the ethical code (or at least the Meta-Code, used here). But what of the psychologist? He has important strengths and a potential contribution, but should he not have considered the expectations and protocols of the service? As a new immigrant he also has much to learn if he is to operate optimally. By not checking and discussing differences in expectation before he acted, he contributed to the problems that arose.

Limits of Procedures

Obligation to be aware of the limits of procedures for particular tasks, and the limits of conclusions that can be derived in different circumstances and for different purposes.

The service appears to have recognized particular strengths in this new colleague that could help in the delivery of a psychological service to a community that may have been poorly served in the past. In this sense, those responsible for hiring the psychologist may have been aware of the requirements of this clause. The supervisor's actions suggest that she may not have been as sensitive to the matter of validity of engagement, as she had not considered the psychologist's perspective on maximizing acceptance by the community and individual clients before engaging in specific intervention.

Obligation to practice within, and to be aware of the psychological community's critical development of theories and methods.

Again, we might ask whether the supervisor was sufficiently thoughtful about the importance of awareness of cultural factors in psychological practice. But the same could be said to apply to the psychologist—did he consider the requirements on professional practice expected of personnel in this service? His focus on the community he knew came at the expense of awareness of the community, the dominant community, into which he was socializing.

Obligation to balance the need for caution when using new methods with recognition that new areas of practice and methods will continue to emerge, and that this is a positive development.

Was the supervisor sufficiently aware of the need to have an open mind? What would this new colleague bring? In addition to the behavior reported here, what would he bring to the specific practice with clients? The arrival of a new colleague has potential for existing staff to learn and develop from the ideas that colleague brings. In this case, there were other cultural and linguistic elements to consider, with great potential benefit to the existing staff. The psychologist also, however, appears not to have thought about this—he was practicing on the basis of what seemed appropriate from past experience—fine, but what more he could learn from exploring the practice of those new colleagues he was joining?

Continuing Development

Obligation to continue professional development

As both supervisor and psychologist were qualified, the issue raised is that of CPD—each has much to give but much also to learn. This may be an opportunity where CPD could be collaborative and collegial, with the new colleague contributing to the development of his colleagues and they, in turn, reciprocating.

General Responsibility

For the quality and consequences of the psychologist's professional actions.

Not to bring the profession into disrepute.

These clauses are pertinent to both. The psychologist was in danger of creating a significant problem, and that could lead to concern in the service. The supervisor meanwhile could be taking action that would offend not only the psychologist but the minority community who would welcome this new, enlightened practice. Neither psychologist was deliberately flouting good practice requirements, but neither was sufficiently thoughtful to ensure good practice occurred.

Extended Responsibility

Assumption of general responsibility for the scientific and professional activities, including ethical standards, of employees, assistants, supervisees and students.

The supervisor had an important responsibility to induct her colleague into practice in this service. Induction is a crucial stage even for an experienced practitioner. It is a period of adjustment, recalibration of expectations and norms against which to regulate your own expectations and behavior. The supervisor could have prevented the difficulties from arising if her approach to supervision had been more sensitive.

Resolving Dilemmas

Recognition that ethical dilemmas occur, and responsibility is placed upon the psychologist to clarify such dilemmas and consult colleagues and/or the national association, and inform relevant others of the demands of the ethical code.

Each had an ethical dilemma but it is not clear that either recognized this. Rather, the psychologist appears to have acted in a way he assumed was correct, and not appreciated that there was a dilemma regarding practice. The supervisor also seems to have adopted a “head down” approach playing by the “rules”—the strict agency policy on not visiting homes. No doubt this was a well-intentioned policy and may have been developed by all staff after much consultation, but its implementation in this case was insufficiently thought through. This is the problem with simply adopting and then requiring all staff to follow policies and protocols.

Psychologists, as professionals, should have a high degree of autonomy. Policies can be helpful but even the best are rarely universally appropriate. Indeed, a critical aspect of being a professional rather than a technician is the obligation and ability to think outside the set procedures. The Meta-Code recognizes this by highlighting the ethical principles first—the specifications are intended to focus thinking on more specific issues. The Meta-Code was also written for associations, not individuals, but in fact many psychologists find it helpful by the nature of its “meta” framework. It does not specify precise and absolute standards. Rather, it specifies issues to consider. The original purpose was to use this method to allow associations freedom to devise a local code that met their national requirements, but within a European consensus; the approach also facilitates and indeed encourages individual psychologists to think about ethics and not simply follow a “cookbook” approach.

Recognition of Professional Limitations

Obligation to be self-reflective and open about personal and professional limitations and a recommendation to seek professional advice and support in difficult situations.

Neither of our psychologists thought to be self-reflective or seek further advice until the psychologist came to his friend after the confrontation. This was a wise move, but it is a pity it did not occur sooner. One might wonder whether the supervisor had also thought to take similar action—she seems to need to have the opportunity to explore her own thinking on the subject. In fact, as has become evident, each had limitations in their practice—as psychologist and supervisor. Each appeared to have acted in good faith, but nevertheless the outcome was problematic. By each opening up about why they were adopting their chosen approach, then, perhaps with a third person to facilitate, a greater sense of understanding on both sides could be engendered.

Conflict of Interests and Exploitation

Awareness of the problems which may result from dual relationships and an obligation to avoid such dual relationships which reduce the necessary professional distance or may lead to conflict of interests, or exploitation of a client.

This is at the heart of the vignette, at least as seen by the supervisor. Protecting against inappropriate dual or multiple relationships is generally seen as good practice—but note the word “generally.” In fact this is a much more complex issue. Many psychologists have dual/multiple relationships. This is particularly obvious in small communities where we must shop, take health care, have cars repaired, etc., and indeed, generally live our lives. Our children may be friends with the children of clients or, in the case of educational/school psychologists, with the children who are our primary clients. The important issue to recognize is that dual relationships are not necessarily inherently wrong. Rather, it is the nature of the relationship, its purpose, and the degree to which the psychologist considers the ethical implications. There is a wide difference between the therapist who abuses power to seduce a client compared with the psychologist who attends the same church congregation or school parent–teacher association in community activities.

In this case, the service was no doubt correct to give this issue careful consideration, but there was a need to be less rigid and to think through the particular circumstances. The psychologist, however, should also consider this issue carefully. Visiting homes and attending social functions may well be normal, even expected or necessary in the culture, but the same concerns that led the service to develop its policy are pertinent. The psychologist must still consider where is the appropriate boundary in this community for him as a member of the community, as opposed to a psychologist in a professional capacity.

Obligation to give a reasonable critique of the professional actions of colleagues, and to take action to inform colleagues and, if appropriate, the relevant professional associations and authorities, if there is a question of unethical action.

The supervisor had the opportunity to offer a reasonable critique—this could have been helpful if done in a particular way. But it seems the critique was not an intellectual appraisal influenced by a social/emotional awareness of the dynamics of the situation. Rather, it was a negative attack, as seen by the psychologist, on what he thought was not only acceptable but indeed good practice. In this case, was the psychologist acting unethically? Was it not rather a case of differences of view? But in any case, the important issue is that neither acted in the best way. If each had adopted a position of reviewing the situation from the principles of good, ethical practice, the confrontation that ensued could have been avoided.

Conclusions

In this chapter I have argued that ethical practice must require an awareness of an appropriate code and set of ethical principles. In addition, there must be an interpretation relevant to the cultural context. This applies at the major level of national identities, laws, and values, right down to local communities. In many countries there is a decreasing sense of unidimensionality with respect to identity and culture. Countries such as the United Kingdom have benefited from centuries of immigration to enrich the culture. But this process also brings challenges, which may change over time. The task for psychologists, therefore, is to have a firm grounding in ethical decision making but to have the capacity to be flexible in interpretation and action.

The EFPA Meta-Code was used in this chapter as the basis for considering how ethical decision-making could operate. As noted above, its framework and style actually provide a useful, rather freer model than many national codes. Rather than setting out firmer “bottom line” behaviors to follow, the Meta-Code encourages psychologists to think about interpretation of principles and specifications. In this example it is important to note that both participants had responsibilities—it was not simply one psychologist who would benefit from a better consideration of ethical decision making. This is not the case normally when a complaint is made about an alleged unethical conduct to an association, but it is quite likely to be the case when psychologists have disagreements or conflicts, at least when these occur for reasons of limited understanding rather than deliberate flouting of the ethical code, or from indifference.

In terms of using the Meta-Code, a simple approach might be characterized as follows. Action requires:

Identifying each relevant element

Analyzing each element in terms of the pertinent issues

Separating each of these from other factors; for example, service conventions which are not specifically ethical issues

The primary messages to take away are, perhaps, simple. First, ethical decision making should be an integral part of professional practice. Second, it is a developmental process, shaped and developed both by practical experience and information from formal training and personal research. Third, ethical codes can provide a very useful support not only by providing information (their content) but also as a tool to support the analysis of ethical dilemmas and decision making regarding action. My last point is to stress the necessity to develop a mindset that places ethical decision making appropriately. With good initial training, supervised practice (especially early on in a career), and reflection, much practice is relatively straightforward with respect to ethical decision making. Some issues, however, are not, and require careful thought and analysis. So, my final comment is to keep a reasonable perspective and to continue to engage in dialogue, whether formally or informally, with a “critical friend” to support the maintenance and development of ethical decision making throughout the professional career.

Then known as the European Federation of Professional Psychologists Associations (EFPPA).

American Psychological Association. ( 1952 ). A little recent history.   American Psychologist, 7, 426–428.

American Psychological Association. ( 2002 ). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct . Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.pdf .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards. ( 2005 ). ASPPB code of conduct . Retrieved from http://www.asppb.net/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3353 .

Bersoff, D. N. ( 2003 ). Ethical conflicts in psychology (3rd ed.). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

British Psychological Society. ( 1985 ). Code of conduct . Leicester, England: Author.

British Psychological Society. ( 2009 ). Code of ethics and conduct . Leicester, England: BPS. Retrieved from http://www.bps.org.uk/the-society/code-of-conduct/ .

Canadian Psychological Association. ( 2003 ). Canadian code of ethics for psychologists (3rd ed.) Ottawa, Ontario: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Canadian%20Code%20of%20Ethics%20for%20Psycho.pdf .

Dingwall, R. ( 2008 ). The ethical case against ethical regulation in humanities and social science research.   21st Century Society, 3, 1–12.

Economic and Social Research Council. (n.d.). Research ethics framework . Swindon: Author. Retrieved from http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/Framework_for_Research_Ethics_tcm8-4586.pdf

European Federation of Psychologists Associations. ( 2005 ). Meta-code of ethics . Retrieved from http://www.efpa.eu/ethics/ethical-codes .

Eynon, R., Schroeder, R., & Fry, J. ( 2009 ). New techniques in online research: Challenges for research ethics.   21 st Century Society, 4 , 187–199.

Fisher, C. B. ( 2003 ). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists . London: Sage.

Fitzgerald, M. ( 2007 ). The EU gets tough on ethics.   Technology Ireland, 38, 27–30.

Gauthier, J., Lindsay, G., Korkut, Y., & Behnke, S. ( 2009 ). How to use ethical principles for creating or reviewing a code of ethics . South Eastern Europe Regional Conference of Psychology. Sofia, Bulgaria.

Health Professions Council. ( 2008 ). Standards of conduct performance and ethics . London: Author. Retrieved from http://www.hpc-uk.org/assets/documents/10002367FINALcopyofSCPEJuly2008.pdf

International Union of Psychological Science and International Association of Applied Psychology. ( 2008 ). Universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists . Retrieved from http://www.am.org/iupsys/resources/ethics/univdecl2008.pdf

Koocher, G. P., & Keith-Spiegel, P. ( 1998 ). Ethics in psychology: Professional standards and cases (Rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Koocher, G. P. ( 2007 ). Twenty-first century ethical challenges for psychology.   American Psychologist, 62, 375–384.

Lindsay, G. ( 1992 ). Educational psychologists and Europe. In S. Wolfendale, T. Bryans, M. Fox, A. Labram, & A. Sigston (Eds.), The profession and practice of educational psychology (pp. 185–197). London: Cassell.

Lindsay, G. ( 1995 ). Values, ethics and psychology.   The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 8, 448–451.

Lindsay, G. ( 2008 ). Ethical challenges for the future. In G. Lindsay, C. Koene, H. øvreeide, & F. Lang (Eds.), Ethics for European psychologists (pp. 181–189). Gottingen, Germany and Cambridge MA: Hogrefe.

Lindsay, G. ( 2009 ). Ethical dilemmas of psychologists: How are these affected at times of national security? In V. Claudio et al. (Eds.), III coloquio Europeu de psicologica e etica (pp. 213–220). Lisbon, Portugal: Instituto Superior de Psicologica Aplicada.

Lindsay, G., & Clarkson, P. ( 1999 ). Ethical dilemmas of psychotherapists.   The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society , 12 , 182–185.

Lindsay, G., & Colley, A. ( 1995 ). Ethical dilemmas of members of the Society.   The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society , 8 , 214–217.

Lindsay, G., Koene, C., øvreeide, H., & Lang, F. (Eds.). ( 2008 ). Ethics for European psychologists . Gottingen, Germany and Cambridge MA: Hogrefe.

Pope, K. S., & Vetter, V. A. ( 1992 ). Ethical dilemmas encountered by members of the American Psychological Association.   American Psychologist, 47, 397–411.

Pryzwansky, W. B., & Wendt, R. N. ( 1999 ). Professional and ethical issues in psychology . London: W.W. Norton.

Rae, W. A., Sullivan, J. R., Razo, N. P., & de Alba, R. C. ( 2009 ). Breaking confidentiality to report adolescent risk-taking behavior by school psychologists.   Ethics and Behavior, 19, 449–460.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Psychiatr Psychol Law
• v.27(3); 2020

Structuring the debate about research ethics in the psychology and law field: an international perspective

Alfred allan.

School of Arts and Humanities, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia

Forensic psychologists’ role is well established, and they are rightly well regulated because their decisions and behaviour can have a significant impact on people’s rights and interests. Their ethical integrity, however, partly hinges on the psycholegal research products (data, methods and instruments) that they and others use. The ethical regulation of researchers who produce products and their research processes is, however, fragmented, limited and narrow and largely focuses on domestic research. Relatively few scholars have examined the regulation of psycholegal research or commented on the ethical implications of recent court decisions. The purpose of this paper is to start a debate about the ethical regulation of researchers in the psycholegal field and consider methods of improving it to maintain society’s trust in the field.

Psychologists’ role in providing services to law (defined here as the legal, corrective, investigative and justice systems) is well established, and they have a significant impact on the legal rights and interests of many people (see Grisso, 2018 ). The media, courts and professional and regulatory bodies therefore scrutinise forensic psychologists’ behaviour and decisions to determine whether they are ethical (right and good; Allan, 2018 ). Professional bodies (e.g. Australian Psychological Society, APS, 2011, 2013 ) and scholars (see, e.g. Allan, 2015a ; Allan & Grisso, 2014 ) provide ethical advice to forensic psychologists and researchers to explore issues such as the impact of bias, without necessarily identifying them as ethical issues (Kukucka, Kassin, Zapf, & Dror, 2017 ; Zapf & Dror, 2017 ).

Forensic psychologists and others involved in the administration of law (administrators; i.e. lawyers, police officers, policy makers, presiding officers, psychiatrists and social workers), however, rely on psychology and law (psycholegal) researchers’ products (i.e. data, methods and instruments). Researchers’ contributions could therefore have a significant influence on law (e.g. Steinberg, 2013 ), legal precedents (e.g. Miller v Alabama, 2012 ; Roper v Simmons, 2005 ; Zapf, Hubbard, Cooper, Wheeles, & Ronan, 2004 ) and policies (Grisso & Kavanaugh, 2016 ). Their contributions can also have a direct impact on society and individuals. Police using line-ups based on indefensible research might arrest the wrong people or allow offenders to escape (for a debate about this issue see Gronlund, Wixted, & Mickes, 2014 ; Wells, 2014 ). Sentencing courts could detain people who would have desisted if they rely on psychologists’ evidence that was based on risk assessment instruments that lack specificity, whilst courts using evidence obtained with instruments that are not sensitive enough might underestimate offenders’ risk of reoffending. People could suffer harm in both situations because offenders and their families suffer harm if sentences are unnecessarily long, and their victims and their families suffer harm if sentences are too lenient. Society also unnecessarily suffers financially either way, because it carries the cost of detaining and providing expensive treatment programmes to offenders, but also bears much of the financial burden of offending.

Despite the potential impact of their research, courts and scholars have given relatively little attention to the ethics of psycholegal researchers’ activities (Ward & Willis, 2010 ) compared to those of forensic psychologists. This lack of scrutiny is, however, not necessarily an indication that there are no problems, as I demonstrate in the next section. My belief is that psycholegal researchers should avoid even trivial unethical behaviours that could erode society’s and administrators’ trust in their research products and that it is time to start debating research ethics within the psycholegal field. My aim is to start this debate by using five ethical principles to analyse some of the ethical challenges I see and then making tentative proposals regarding how the profession could respond.

Nature of the problem

Psycholegal research has to the best my knowledge escaped major ethical embarrassments, and there has been little public discourse about allegations that have been made. Regehr, Edwardh and Bradford ( 2000 ), for instance, alleged that the researchers collecting the data used to develop the Statistical Risk Appraisal Guide (SRAG; G. T. Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 1993 ) did not inform participants they were collecting data, or gave them a choice of participating. The importance of this from an ethical perspective is that this instrument forms the basis of the Sex Offender Risk Assessment Guide (SORAG; G. T. Harris, Rice, Quinsey, & Cormier, 2015 ) and the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Rice & Harris, 1997 ). There has similarly been little debate about Australian (e.g. Director of Public Prosecutions [WA] v Mangolamara, 2007 ), Canadian (e.g. Canada v Ewert, 2016 ; Ewert v Canada, 2015 , 2018 ) and New Zealand (e.g. R v Peta, 2007 ) decisions that raise questions about the field’s ability to produce products that serve all people.

Some of these decisions, however, point to a further underlying ethical question – namely, how the field can prevent the deliberate or inadvertent misuse of its research products. Researchers understand that instruments such as the Static-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 1999 ) are not meant to identify a particular individual as a recidivist or a non-recidivist. The instrument is, however, used for this purpose in Australia, leading to an Australian judge finding that there is no evidence that the Static-99 has any efficacy whatsoever in relation to Australian Indigenous men (see Director of Public Prosecutions [WA] v Samson, 2014 ).

The problem facing the field is that that the public and law administrators’ trust in the field’s products might be eroded by judicial statements about the credibility of psychological research even though the researchers in question might not define themselves as psycholegal researchers. This happened in Brown v Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA, 2011 ) where the United States (US) Supreme Court considered psychological research regarding the impact of video violence ‘unpersuasive’ (p. 17). Justice Scalia was circumspect in explaining this decision but it further erodes the perceived trustworthiness of psychologists who, like other scientists, are steadily losing the trust of the public, particularly conservatives (Gauchat, 2012 ) who see them as social justice advocates who use their research to liberalise public policy (Cofnas, Carl, & Woodley of Menie, 2018 ). Even fair-minded observers could rightly question psychologists’ objectivity given the lack of socio-political diversity (e.g. Redding, 2001 ) within the profession and it allowing situations such as occurred in Brown v EMA (2011) where psychologists made statements that surpass their data or disregard objective disconfirming evidence (e.g. Ferguson, 2013 ). One possible explanation for this phenomenon is that the psychologists used moral disengagement (see Bandura et al., 1996 ) to justify using imperfect products to pursue a liberal moral agenda. Haslam ( 2016 , p. 1), for instance, explains how psychologists through ‘concept creep’ expanded their concepts of harm and vulnerability beyond that of the general public to protect those they define as defenceless. Some psychologists might therefore in the pursuit of goals that they and/or many in society highly value disregard their ethical obligations to be honest, fair and trustworthy. Such a ‘dual commitment to science and advocacy’ (Grisso, 2018 , p. 21) is apparent amongst psycholegal researchers, and this is an issue that the field should consider.

Psycholegal scholars also neglect to write about psycholegal research ethics or the ethics of publishing psycholegal research findings. My search in Law and Human Behavior, Behavioral Science and the Law and Ethics and Behavior using ‘research ethi’ and ‘publi ethi’ as search terms identified no relevant publication. Law and Human Behavior’s revised classification codes similarly do not provide a logical heading for papers on research ethics or directly refer to research ethics (see McAuliff et al., 2019 ). Scholars in particular do not write about the research ethics from an international perspective even though psycholegal research has become a global enterprise. Researchers increasingly work in international teams and/or undertake research outside their own countries, and psychologists and administrators from all over the world use psycholegal researchers’ products. The ethical regulation of research is furthermore still primarily country-centric and fragmented with several bodies directly or indirectly regulating researchers.

Regulatory bodies (e.g. professional licensing or registration boards), for instance, regulate all registered psychologists doing research in their jurisdiction whilst professional bodies (e.g. American Psychological Association, APA) only regulate researchers who are their members. Some people involved in psycholegal research might do so without oversight from any regulatory body. The bodies’ ethical codes and guidelines primarily focus on psychologists ‘conducting research’ (American Psychology and Law Society, APLS, 2011 , p. 1) and ignore psychologists’ other research related roles. These roles include determining psycholegal research agendas and priorities and allocating research funds, and serving as members of institution review boards (IRBs, also known as ethics committees, Schneider, 2006 ), research assistants, reviewers of manuscripts and editors.

IRBs provide the next level of regulation and have become important ethical gatekeepers of psycholegal research in most countries because they approve researchers’ proposals and oversee the execution of their research projects. Schüklenk’s ( 2000 ) conclusions after examining historical cases of breaches of research ethics in medicine were that IRBs are only moderately effective in determining the ethical justification of proposed research projects and ineffective in monitoring the execution and outcomes of research projects. Part of the problem is that IRBs mainly respond to complaints they receive and that their members are often lay people and/or researchers from disciplines who do not necessarily fully understand the subtleties of specific research projects (Schüklenk, 2000 ; Straight, 2009 ).

The peer review process has therefore become the ultimate gatekeeper to ensure that researchers act ethically (Allan, 2015a ). Authors have, however, expressed concern about the effectiveness of the review process in general (e.g. Bohannon, 2013 ; Smith, 2006 ) and the ethical review of researchers’ behaviour in particular (e.g. Kapoor, Young, Coleman, Norko, & Griffith, 2011 ; Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2016 ; Levelt, 2012 ). They even question whether some behaviour of editors is ethical (e.g. Lilienfeld, 2002 ; Stone & MacCourt, 2008 ). Editors’ and reviewers’ role as ethical scrutineers of research is further becoming more difficult as the volume of projects grows and researchers increasingly use more sophisticated methods and statistical approaches and tools for analysing data (Kazak, 2018 ; Wright, 2016 ). Editors must therefore increasingly rely on the ethical integrity of researchers whom they know are under pressure to publish and therefore might be careless or dishonest when they submit manuscripts (Schminke, 2009 ; Wright, 2016 ).

Some editors and publishers have formed the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to increase the ethical scrutiny of editors’ and reviewers’ decisions and behaviour (Godlee, 2004 ). COPE published a code of conduct ( 2011 ) and core practices ( n.d. ) to guide editors regarding their specific ethical obligations, but compliance is voluntary, and some recommendations might be difficult to enforce. Angelski, Fernande, Weijer, and Gao ( 2012 ), for instance, found that only 38% ( n  = 13) of the editors who participated in their survey (of all 103 English language journals in the Abridged Index Medicus) indicated that they specifically instruct reviewers to reject manuscripts based on ethical grounds alone. The authors do not indicate why editors do not give such instructions but some might believe that there is sufficient ethical scrutiny if IRBs approved the research, feel that they do not have a mandate or resources to make such requests (e.g. Godlee, 2004 ) or doubt that reviewers have the ethical sensitivity, knowledge and skills to undertake a proper ethical analysis of the manuscripts they review (e.g. Pierson, 2015 ). The scope of the COPE guidelines is also narrow, and the editors of the new journals with uncertain reputation that are constantly appearing might not follow them (Roberts, 2016 ).

Contemporary researchers can, however, disseminate their findings online (e.g. blogs) or in grey literature published outside the traditional academic or commercial publication and distribution channels without any review or scam reviews (see Bohannon, 2013 ). Published material falling in these two categories might increase as digital publication has become a lucrative business with authors paying $250 million in 2014 to publish above two million articles in more than 20,000 digital journals (see Bohannon, 2015 ). Researchers might also increase their use of the outlets, as major funding bodies in several regions (Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, 1938 ; Schiltz, 2018 ) require researchers to provide open access to their research findings.

Ethical framework

The profession has traditionally used the principles in codes of ethics (e.g. American Psychological Association, 2002 ; Australian Psychological Society, 2007 ; Canadian Psychological Association, 2017 ) to state its moral ideals. These principles are universally accepted (see Gauthier, Pettifor, & Ferrero, 2010 ; International Association of Applied Psychology [IAAP] and the International Union of Psychological Science [IUPsyS], 2008 ), but the drafters of codes differ regarding how they combine the principles and what they call them (Allan, 2011 ). Given the international approach I am taking, I will use the framework of ethical principles that Allan ( 2018 ) used to examine the ethical challenges that forensic psychologists face internationally – namely, Respect for the dignity of humanity (Respect), Justice, Fidelity or Trust, Care and Responsibility principles.

The Respect principle underlies both human rights law and ethics (Allan, 2013 ) and is of importance to all researchers as it requires them to recognise potential participants’ self-worth, moral and legal rights and interests, autonomy and privacy (including their right to be left alone, Allan, 2015a ). The principle further requires psychologists to be truthful (i.e. honest, open and able to account for their decisions and actions and admit the limitations of their research products and their application).

The Justice principle is of particular importance to the psycholegal field because distributive justice requires psychologists to ensure that the benefits, costs and risks of their research are fairly distributed amongst all people. Distributive justice partly underlies the European Plan S that was launched in 2018 (Schiltz, 2018 ). Procedural justice requires researchers to contribute to fair decision making regarding other people’s rights and interests (Allan, 2015b ).

The Trust principle recognises that psychologists must be trustworthy in order to realise their social purpose (e.g. MacDonald, 1995 ; Parsons, 1968 ). Society, including administrators, cannot determine individual researchers’ competence (i.e. their ability, knowledge and skill) and whether they are acting in society’s best interests, or the reliability of their research products. Society could start mistrusting researchers if courts regularly reject testimony based on psycholegal research products even though the researchers’ own behaviour was ethical.

Psychologists are familiar with the Care principle, which requires them to take reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable harm and to minimise unavoidable or unintended harm to participants. Researchers’ responsibility, however, extends beyond foreseeable direct and physical harm to participants to include potential indirect and non-physical harm that could occur when others use their research products.

Researchers might be unfamiliar with the Responsibility principle, which reflects psychologists’ collective and individual ethical responsibilities to several entities and people depending on their roles. Society considers psycholegal research important, and governments and public enterprise therefore support researchers by giving them opportunities and funds to do research. Society in return expects psychologists to use their knowledge, skill and experience to the benefit of society as a whole (e.g. MacDonald, 1995 ; Parsons, 1968 ). They must therefore undertake only socially beneficial research and disseminate comprehensible accounts of their research findings as broadly as possible (e.g. Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 1938 ; Fuller, Pearson, & Peters, 2016 ). Psycholegal researchers who acquire their professional identity and credibility from their role as psychologists should furthermore refrain from doing anything that could impair the standing of the field and their peers and therefore take steps to protect the reputation of the field when they see peers misbehaving (e.g. Koocher, 2012 ; Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2010 ).

These principles apply to all psychologists whether they act collectively or individually as researchers, delegates (e.g. graduate students and research assistants), reviewers or editors. I first consider some of the challenges I believe the psycholegal field as a collective faces and then briefly examine the challenges to individual psychologists in different roles.

Society expects psychology to develop products that benefit it in a manner that all their members equally share the benefits, costs and risks. This includes indigenous, migrant or other minority groups within jurisdictions (e.g. Allan, Dawson, & Allan, 2006 ). Individual researchers cannot meet the needs of all people in the world, but the field’s global 1 reach further implies that researchers should consider the distributive justice implications of their research endeavours in at least those jurisdictions where there are researchers that contribute to the development of their products or practitioners use them. The Ewert case (e.g. Canada v Ewert, 2016 ; Ewert v Canada, 2015 , 2018 ) is, however, a reminder of how far the field still is from achieving these goals even for all groups within the country for which these instruments were developed. The applicant in this case was a Métis (Canadian Aboriginal) man whose legal team argued that a range of well-known psychological tests such as the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL–R; Hare, 1991 ); VRAG (Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998 ); SORAG (Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Comier, 2006 ); Static-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 1999 ; A. J. R. Harris, Phenix, Hanson, & Thornton, 2003 ; Helmus, Hanson, & Thornton, 2009 ) and the Violence Risk Scale–Sex Offender (VRS–SO; Wong, Olver, Nicholaichuk, & Gordon, 2003 , 2006 ) ‘generate false results and false conclusions when used on Aboriginal persons’ (Canada v Ewert, 2016 , ¶20). The essence of the Supreme Court’s decision is that these instruments, some that were developed in Canada, discriminate against Aboriginal offenders (Ewert v Canada, 2018 ). This discrimination, however, extends beyond offenders because this lack of appropriate instruments places the public, but especially Aboriginal people, at risk because they are more likely to be the victims of Aboriginal offenders (Allan et al., 2018 ). Many practitioners continue to use instruments inappropriately because they are unaware of the ethical implications and/or because they have no appropriate alternatives to use.

Individual researchers have a role to play in minimising the inappropriate use of their research products, as I discuss later, but can do little to influence the behaviour of practitioners. They will in particular find it difficult to independently overcome obstacles that individually or in combination with others make it difficult to satisfy society’s ultimate requirement that the field should meet the realistic needs of all members in an equitable manner. Researchers might, for instance, find it difficult or unattractive to undertake research in certain areas for a variety of reasons, including ideological opinions within society and psychology (e.g. female perpetrated domestic violence, Lee & Lincoln, 2017 ). They might equally anticipate difficulties in ensuring the privacy of research participants when they study small populations (e.g. mass killers) because they could find it difficult to hide participants’ identifying information when they report their findings, especially if they do research in a small jurisdiction.

The field as a collective will have to address these issues and other similar problems that might need a strategic and collaborative approach. The field might, for instance, have to coordinate the development of research methods that will allow researchers to develop risk prediction instruments that satisfy legal and ethical standards for small populations (e.g. indigenous people or migrants) where the base rate of the offending behaviour is low (e.g. sexual and violent offending). A collective attempt might also be necessary to make use of opportunities to obtain research funds for some types of research. Cases such as the Ewert case (Ewert v Canada, 2018 ) might encourage governments to fund the research necessary for them to meet their human rights obligations, and this provides opportunities for the field to fulfil some of its own ethical responsibilities.

The field as a collective is also in a better position to consider emerging ethical issues across the world, encourage research that can inform researchers’ practice and help psychologists understand their ethical responsibilities, including those relevant beyond the jurisdiction that they work in. It could, for instance, promote a more pluralistic discourse by creating opportunities for respectful and informed debate between psycholegal researchers who have diverse values and beliefs. The field could also encourage researchers to undertake research to identify the role of bias in their research in the same way as they are studying the role of partiality in forensic psychologists’ assessment (e.g. Neal & Brodsky, 2016 ; Neal & Grisso, 2014 ; Zapf & Dror, 2017 ). It could aid psychologists by developing ethical guidelines and educating them about their roles as ethical agents, especially within a global context. The field is finally in a stronger position to encourage publishers to endorse these guidelines and monitor that researchers, editors and reviewers implement them.

Researchers

Rosenthal ( 1994 ) pointed out that researchers’ ethical obligations span a wide range of decisions and behaviours that start with their choice of research topics, designs and questions, how they frame these questions and who they invite as participants. Their ethical obligations continue when they execute projects, delegate tasks, choose analytical methods and interpret, report and explain their research findings. Most researchers are intent on behaving ethically, but they are also enthusiastic about their research ideas, getting approval from, and sometimes entering into agreements with, host organisations that can give them access to participants or data. They could therefore commit themselves to projects without fully understanding the challenges and resources they require or fail to identify or ignore or minimise potential ethical problems with their research projects. They might specifically not understand the challenges of projects they undertake in jurisdictions where they are unfamiliar with the law and morals (Benatar & Singer, 2000 ). Researchers might also not understand how their everyday activities and attempts to boost their self-esteem could bias them. Their competition with peers to attract research grants and enhance their careers; commercial interests; and the promotion of ideological or theoretical views might, for instance, bias them (e.g. FeldmanHall et al., 2012 ; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995 ; Greenwald, Pickrell, & Farnham, 2002 ). Those who appreciate the risk of being biased might underestimate how difficult it is even for critical thinkers (Babcock & Loewenstein, 1997 ; Babcock, Loewenstein, & Issacharoff, 1997 ) who are trying their best to do the right thing (for a discussion, see Epley & Caruso, 2004 ) to overcome bias.

Researchers should therefore consider strategies that will simultaneously ensure that their projects are feasible, ethical and unbiased and avoid creating unrealistic expectations from those who support their research. They could do this by planning their projects in detail at the onset and inviting peers whom they trust to be objective or who hold opposing ideological views to critique the research methodology (Grisso & Steinberg, 2005 ). They can further enhance their perceived objectivity by pre-registering their hypotheses, methods and analyses before undertaking their projects (e.g. Van ’t Veer & Giner-Sorolla, 2016 ) and maintaining audit trials of their activities that will allow them to give an account of their research.

Researchers should also consider the broader implications of their studies, such as whether their research is a justifiable use of limited research funds or merely very narrow studies that serve little purpose other than further their careers (Lilienfeld, 2012 ; Nosek & Bar-Anan, 2012 ). Every project cannot benefit every group in society, but researchers should explicitly consider the distributive justice implications of their research. They should ideally undertake projects that will bring benefits to those groups that are currently not well served and strive to distribute the costs of their research fairly by not placing an unnecessary burden on victims (e.g. of human rights abuses, Allan, 2000 ) and offenders (e.g. in drug courts, DeMatteo, Filone, & LaDuke, 2011 ). Researchers could argue that research with victims and offenders is justified because it benefits society as a whole, but this argument is unconvincing when researchers place additional burdens on participants by using their time and adding to the stress they experience (DeMatteo et al., 2011 ).

Professional ethics obliges researchers to go beyond merely complying with the requirements of IRBs when they consider the possible ethical challenges they might encounter. Many researchers find it challenging to avoid placing undue pressure on people to give consent (e.g. Van Loon & Lindegger, 2009 ) or provide inaccurate information (e.g. Bowling & Huang, 2018 ). Psycholegal researchers’ potential participants, however, often have several characteristics that might subtly influence their ability to give free consent and accurate responses. Cultural and literacy issues (e.g. Strickland, Parry, Allan, & Allan, 2017 ) can, for instance, influence detainees’ ability to understand information and make detached decisions. Modest financial incentives and/or contact with friendly attractive research assistants could influence detainees and other participants who are materially, emotionally and socially deprived (e.g. Rosenfeld & Green, 2009 ). Detainees with mental disorders (e.g. Regehr et al., 2000 ) or people under investigation or involved in legal proceedings (e.g. in family or drug courts, DeMatteo et al., 2011 ) typically experience emotional and other stress, and they could agree to participate in research because it is easier to acquiesce or because they fear they might suffer prejudice if they refuse to participate.

Researchers should also consider how they can limit the potential misuse of their research products in a manner that could potentially cause harm. Allan and Dawson ( 2002 ), for instance, had to cease developing a model for predicting Australian Indigenous men’s risk of violence when they found that whilst ‘the recidivism predictive accuracy (95.4%) of the model for the violent offenders was good … the desisting predictive accuracy (55%) was poor’ (p. 10) and that the model was therefore ‘geared toward identifying re-offenders at the expense of non-reoffenders [that] … would only heighten the over representation of Indigenous people within the prison system’ (p. 84).

Delegates and collaborators

Graduate students, research assistants and other research collaborators who are psychologists have a personal and professional responsibility to use their intimate knowledge of projects to identify fabrications and falsifications that might otherwise go undetected (see Koocher, 2012 ). The field might, however, have to find ways to encourage and support whistle-blowers because they report that such disclosure may have a negative effect on their personal lives and their careers (Koocher, 2012 ).

Peer reviewers

The Justice principle obliges those who benefit from the efforts of those who serve as committee members, editors, editorial board members and reviewers to share the burden of reviewing proposals, grant applications and manuscripts (Pierson, 2016 ). The challenge is, however, to find reviewers that understand their own ethical obligations (Gallagher, 2013 ) and are competent to investigate the scientific and ethical appropriateness of researchers’ procedures, including the global ethical implications of their projects and manuscripts. Reviewers might, furthermore, know that they must be procedurally fair and therefore unbiased but, as I pointed out earlier, they might be unable to identify their biases and therefore might not disclose conflicts of interest. Editors and publishers can to a degree regulate reviewers’ behaviour but will find it difficult to, for example, ensure that they respect researchers’ intellectual property rights and refrain from disclosing or using information they obtained during the review process.

The best strategy for the field is arguably to improve reviewers’ ethical knowledge and develop novice reviewers’ skills by identifying and encouraging competent reviewers to present workshops at conferences that specifically focus on reviewers’ ethical obligations. It could also encourage editors to identify and help early career researchers develop their reviewing skills. Editors could do this by giving constructive feedback to inexperienced reviewers, providing them the opportunity to work with experienced reviewers and finding ways of rewarding their contributions.

Editors have all reviewers’ ethical responsibilities plus those that come from their responsibility to monitor the ethical appropriateness of what reviewers do and make the final decisions about the acceptance and publication of manuscripts. Editors should therefore encourage reviewers to be honest and critical in their reports but ensure that the tone and content of their reports are respectful and devoid of intemperate criticism or language that demeans researchers.

Editors should in particular ensure that reviewers are unbiased, and some editors try to do this by allowing authors to disqualify people who they would prefer not to be reviewers. Authors might, however, not be able to identify all the potential conflicted reviewers. An approach that could improve the transparency of reviews would be to remove reviewers’ anonymity. Some reviewers might, however, not give critical reviews because they fear reprisals whilst others might refuse to undertake reviews if they are identified. An alternative approach could be that editors propose a panel of appropriate reviewers and invite authors to make a shortlist that they then use to appoint reviewers.

Editors should monitor reviewers’ reports for any signs of bias such as when they extensively cite themselves and/or their close associates, or instruct authors to read such papers. Reviewers who do this might nevertheless be raising valid points. Editors who accept such manuscripts for publication could consider inviting reviewers to submit their commentaries as short articles that accompany the original manuscripts with the authors’ replies to those commentaries. Open and frank debates of this nature are informative and could combat concerns that the peer review system lacks transparency.

Editors who try to, or expect reviewers to, undertake substantial ethical reviews might find that there is seldom enough information in manuscripts to do that because authors merely report that they had IRB consent to undertake the project. Authors, for instance, routinely report little or no information that allows editors and reviewers to confirm that the participants were fully informed and competent. Editors and reviewers could in many instances be comfortable with blunt statements of compliance, but where the participants might have been vulnerable they have a responsibility to obtain evidence that the participants made voluntary, free and fully informed decisions. Authors will probably resent providing additional information, and there is also a risk of extensive communications between them and editors that could delay publication of papers. Publishers could, however, consider requiring researchers to make their working documents and raw data available in secure online sites where editors and reviewers can access them when required.

An outcome of the wide use of the fields’ research products is that some users might lack a sound understanding of the limitations of these products and therefore use them in an unethical way. Many Australian assessors (see Director of Public Prosecutions [WA] v Mangolamara, 2007 ) and Departments of Corrective Services employees use the Static-99 to identify offenders as recidivists or non-recidivists (Allan, 2015a , 2018 ; Allan et al., 2018 ). This practice is unethical because the Static-99 was not designed for this purpose and has not been validated in Australia, and specifically not for Australian Indigenous men, who are over-represented in the prison system (Allan, 2015a ). Smallbone and Rallings ( 2013 ) therefore considered it necessary to include data about the low true-positive and high false-positive rates of their Static-99 data for Indigenous sexual offenders in the original manuscript they submitted (S. Smallbone, personal communication, September 23, 2013). The editor and reviewers, however, asked them to remove the relevant table and discussion because they considered it inappropriate to report such data for the Static-99. The implication of this deletion is that users of the Static-99, experts instructed by the defendants and lawyers, and therefore courts, are deprived of important data. This appears to be a case where those involved focus on reporting to other scientists and sophisticated users of research (see Fuller et al., 2016 ) without considering the ethical implications of removing the relevant data.

This case demonstrates the need for editors to be sensitive to ethical issues that go beyond merely the normal publication ethics and to take into account the unique circumstances at the location where the data were collected (Salaam & Brown, 2013 ) or might be used. Publishers could consider identifying ethicists whom editors and reviewers can consult if they are uncertain about the ethical appropriateness of manuscripts or the research they are based on.

Editors should specifically consider the ethical aspect of manuscripts and instruct reviewers to do the same. Editors should reject manuscripts when appropriate or require authors to make changes that address their ethical concerns. Editors could also consider adding an editorial caveat regarding the ethical concerns (see Angelski et al., 2012 ) and how they were addressed or inviting the specialist reviewers to write a commentary on the published paper. Such editorial comments and commentaries will serve the additional purpose of providing ethical education to others partaking in the research process and readers and users of the articles.

Psycholegal research is a success story. The field can point to several areas where its research products enhance the administration of justice and protection of the public (e.g. identification of reoffenders). It can also point to the very high number of non-researchers that use its research products, extending from psychologists to other administrators of law. It can even point to the financial rewards it brings to some researchers, which in turn motivates them and others to do psycholegal research. The field has achieved this with minimal external regulation because society and administrators trust researchers and their products.

Society is, however, becoming more critical of researchers, and the field cannot shrug all such criticism off as mere ideological scepticism, because an analysis of the case law points to issues regarding researchers’ objectivity and the distribution of the benefit, harm and risk of their research. Many researchers might not consider the issues raised in these cases as ethical issues, but they are, and if the field fails to address them it could lead to an erosion of society and administrators’ trust in the field. This scrutiny of psycholegal research is likely to increase as the human rights culture develops in more countries, because courts applying human rights law often make findings that indirectly reflect on the field’s research ethics as psychology’s ethics and human rights law share the same foundation (Allan, 2013 ). The field therefore faces the prospect that society directly or through courts could prescribe to it how it should regulate research. Researchers as individuals and a collective can prevent this by aspiring to realise the profession’s ethical principles, even though they most likely will never be able to do so fully because these moral ideas are at the outer limit of what can pragmatically be reached (see Brownlee, 2010 ).

The lack of international professional and/or regulatory bodies with formal legal structures makes it difficult for the field to respond at a global level, but the field could partly overcome this limitation if national bodies that represent psychologists such as the APLS, the APS’s College of Forensic Psychologists and the British Psychological Society’s Division of Forensic Psychology affiliate with a body that has an international structure (e.g. the IAAP), which can then coordinate the field globally. Law’s jurisdictional nature (e.g. Allan, 2011 ) will prevent such a coordinating body from adopting and enforcing a common code, but it could orchestrate the non-regulatory activities of the various national bodies. Editors could encourage authors to submit papers on the ethics of psycholegal research and explicitly instruct reviewers to consider the ethics of the projects that manuscripts are based on. I concede that the article is limited because I mostly draw from areas that I am familiar with, such as the development of instruments to predict the risk of reoffending, and that my ideas are aspirational and many will argue impractical, but the field needs to debate these issues if it wants to maintain the trust of society, and the sooner it starts the better.

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest.

Alfred Allan has declared no conflicts of interest

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.

1 The extra-territorial legal responsibilities of psychologists are beyond the ambit of this paper, but psychologists who adhere to the aspirational ethical principles will generally be acting within the ambit of morally acceptable law in most, if not all, jurisdictions as law generally prescribes less aspirational minimum behavioural standards.

• Allan, A. (2000). Truth and reconciliation: A psycholegal perspective . Ethnicity & Health , 5 ( 3–4 ), 191–204. doi: 10.1080/713667457 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan, A. (2011). The development of a code for Australian psychologists . Ethics & Behavior , 21 ( 6 ), 435–451. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2011.622176 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan, A. (2013). Are human rights redundant in the ethical codes of psychologists? Ethics & Behavior , 23 ( 4 ), 251–265. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2013.776480 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan, A. (2015a). Ethics in psychology and law: An international perspective . Ethics & Behavior , 25 ( 6 ), 443–457. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2014.952006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan, A. (2015b). Psychologists and the courts: Ethical issues. In Morrissey S., Reddy P., Davidson G. R. & Allan A. (Eds.), Ethics and professional practice (2nd ed., pp. 103–110). Melbourne, Australia: Cengage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan, A. (2018). Moral challenges for psychologists working in psychology and law . Psychiatry, Psychology and Law , 25 ( 3 ), 485–499. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2018.1473173 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan, A., & Dawson, D. (2002). Developing a unique risk of violence tool for Australian Indigenous offenders (Criminology Research Council report: CRC6/00-01). Canberra, Australia: Criminology Research Council. Retrieved from http://crg.aic.gov.au/reports/200001-06.html .
• Allan, A., & Grisso, T. (2014). Ethical principles and the communication of forensic mental health assessments . Ethics & Behavior , 24 ( 6 ), 467–477. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2014.880346 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan, A., Dawson, D., & Allan, M.M. (2006). Prediction of the risk of male sexual reoffending in Australia . Australian Psychologist , 41 ( 1 ), 60–68. doi: 10.1080/00050060500391886 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan, A., Parry, C.L., Ferrante, A., Gillies, C., Griffiths, C.S., Morgan, F., … Wong, S.C.P. (2018). Assessing the risk of Australian Indigenous sexual offenders reoffending: A review the research literature and court decisions . Psychiatry, Psychology and Law , 26 ( 2 ), 274–294. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2018.1504242 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/
• American Psychology and Law Society [APLS]. (2011). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. Retrieved from http://www.ap-ls.org/links/professionalsgfp.html
• Angelski, C., Fernande, C.V., Weijer, C., & Gao, J. (2012). The publication of ethically uncertain research: Attitudes and practices of journal editors . BMC Medical Ethics , 13 ( 1 ), 1–6. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-13-4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Australian Psychological Society. (2007). Code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.psychsociety.org.au/
• Australian Psychological Society. (2013). Guidelines for psychological practice in forensic contexts. Retrieved from https://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/EG-Forensic.pdf
• Babcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of self-serving biases . The Journal of Economic Perspectives , 11 ( 1 ), 109–126. doi: 10.1257/jep.11.1.109 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., & Issacharoff, S. (1997). Creating convergence: Debiasing biased litigants . Law & Social Inquiry , 22 ( 4 ), 913–925. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.1997.tb01092.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G.V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 71 ( 2 ), 364–374. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benatar, S.R., & Singer, P.A. (2000). A new look at international research ethics . BMJ , 321 ( 7264 ), 824–826. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7264.824 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science , 342 ( 6154 ), 60–65. doi: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bohannon, J. (2015). How to hijack a journal. Science . Retrieved from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/feature-how-hijack-journal [ PubMed ]
• Bowling, N.A., & Huang, J.L. (2018). Your attention please! Towards a better understanding of research participant carelessness . Applied Psychology , 67 ( 2 ), 227–230. doi: 10.1111/apps.12143 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown v Entertainment Merchants Association [EMA]. (2011). 564 U.S. 08-1448. Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08–1448.pdf .
• Brownlee, K. (2010). Moral aspirations and ideals . Utilitas , 22 ( 3 ), 241–257. doi: 10.1093/ojls/gqq006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Canada v Ewert. (2016). FCA 203. Retrieved from http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2016/2016fca2203/2016fca2203.html .
• Canadian Psychological Association. (2017). Canadian code of ethics for psychologists (4th ed.). Toronto, Canada: Author. Retrieved from https://cpa.ca/docs/File/Ethics/CPA_Code_2017_4thEd.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Cofnas, N., Carl, N., & Woodley Of Menie, M.A. (2018). Does activism in social science explain conservatives’ distrust in scientists ? The American Sociologist , 49 ( 1 ), 135–148. doi: 10.1007/s12108-017-9362-0 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (2011). Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20Conduct_2.pdf
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (n.d.). Core practices. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/
• DeMatteo, D., Filone, S., & LaDuke, C. (2011). Methodological, ethical, and legal considerations in drug court research . Behavioral Sciences & the Law , 29 ( 6 ), 806–820. doi: 10.1002/bsl.1011 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Director of Public Prosecutions [WA] v Mangolamara. (2007). WASC 71. Retrieved from http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/wa/WASC/2007/71.html?context=1;query=mangolamara;mask_path=au/cases/wa/WASC
• Director of Public Prosecutions [WA] v Samson. (2014). WASC 199. Retrieved from http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/wa/WASC/2014/199.html
• Epley, N., & Caruso, E.M. (2004). Egocentric ethics . Social Justice Research , 17 ( 2 ), 171–187. doi: 10.1023/B:SORE.0000027408.72713.45 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ewert v Canada. (2015). FC 1093. Retrieved from http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc1093/2015fc1093.html
• Ewert v Canada. (2018). SCC 30. Retrieved from https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/17133/1/document.do
• Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. (1938). (United States). Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/LawsEnforcedbyFDA/FederalFoodDrugandCosmeticActFDCAct/default.htm .
• FeldmanHall, O., Mobbs, D., Evans, D., Hiscox, L., Navrady, L., & Dalgleish, T. (2012). What we say and what we do: The relationship between real and hypothetical moral choices . Cognition , 123 ( 3 ), 434–441. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.02.001 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferguson, C.J. (2013). Violent video games and the Supreme Court: Lessons for the scientific community in the wake of Brown v Entertainment Merchants Association . American Psychologist , 68 ( 2 ), 57–74. doi: 10.1037/a0030597 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fuller, T.E., Pearson, M., & Peters, J. (2016). Improving the reporting of health and psychological research . Australian Psychologist , 51 ( 3 ), 182–187. doi: 10.1111/ap.12135 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gallagher, A. (2013). The ethics of reviewing . Nursing Ethics , 20 ( 7 ), 735–736. doi: 10.1177/0969733013506646 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the Unites States, 1974 to 2010 . American Sociological Review , 77 ( 2 ), 167–187. doi: 10.1177/0003122412438225 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gauthier, J., Pettifor, J., & Ferrero, A. (2010). The universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists: A culture-sensitive model for creating and reviewing a code of ethics . Ethics & Behavior , 20 ( 3–4 ), 179–196. doi: 10.1080/10508421003798885 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Godlee, F. (2004). Dealing with editorial misconduct: New code of conduct for editors is a first step in self regulation . BMJ , 329 ( 7478 ), 1301–1302. doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7478.1301 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenwald, A.G., & Banaji, M.R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes . Psychological Review , 102 ( 1 ), 4–27. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenwald, A.G., Pickrell, J.E., & Farnham, S.D. (2002). Implicit partisanship: Taking sides for no reason . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 83 ( 2 ), 367–379. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.2.367 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grisso, T. (2018). The evolution of psychology and law. In Grisso T. & Brodsky S.L. (Eds.), The roots of modern psychology and law (pp. 1–28). New York, NY: Oxford. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grisso, T., & Kavanaugh, A. (2016). Prospects for developmental evidence in juvenile sentencing based on Miller v Alabama . Psychology, Public Policy, and Law , 22 ( 3 ), 235–249. doi: 10.1037/law0000090 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grisso, T., & Steinberg, L. (2005). Between a rock and a soft place: Developmental research and the child advocacy process . Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology , 34 ( 4 ), 619–627. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp3404_4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gronlund, S.D., Wixted, J.T., & Mickes, L. (2014). Evaluating eyewitness identification procedures using ROC analyses . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 23 ( 1 ), 3–10. doi: 10.1177/0963721413498891 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanson, R.K., & Thornton, D. (1999). Static 99: Improving risk assessments for sex offenders. Retrieved from http://www.sgc.gc.ca [ PubMed ]
• Hare, R.D. (1991). The hare psychopathy checklist- revised manual . Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris, A.J.R., Phenix, A., Hanson, R.K., & Thornton, D. (2003). Static-99 Coding rules tevised . Ottawa, Canada: Solicitor General, Canada. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E., & Quinsey, V.L. (1993). Violent recidivism of mentally disordered offenders: The development of a statistical prediction instrument . Criminal Justice and Behavior , 20 ( 4 ), 315–335. doi: 10.1177/0093854893020004001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E., Quinsey, V.L., & Cormier, C. (2015). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haslam, N. (2016). Concept creep: Psychology’s expanding concepts of harm and pathology . Psychological Inquiry , 27 ( 1 ), 1–17. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2016.1082418 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Helmus, L., Hanson, R.K., & Thornton, D. (2009). Reporting Static-99 in light of new research on recidivism norms . The Forum , 21 ( 1 ), 38–45. [ Google Scholar ]
• International Association of Applied Psychology [IAAP] and the International Union of Psychological Science [IUPsyS] (2008). Universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists . Retrieved http://www.am.org/iupsys/resources/ethics/univdecl2008.html
• Kapoor, R., Young, J.L., Coleman, J.T., Norko, M.A., & Griffith, E.E.H. (2011). Ethics in forensic psychiatry publishing . Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law , 39 ( 3 ), 332–341. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kazak, A.E. (2018). Editorial: Journal article reporting standards . American Psychologist , 73 ( 1 ), 1–2. doi: 10.1037/amp0000263 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koocher, G.P. (2012). Walter C. Randall lecture on biomedical ethics: Colleagues as a defense against bad science . The Physiologist , 55 ( 2 ), 52–56. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koocher, G.P., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2010). Peers nip misconduct in the bud . Nature , 466 ( 7305 ), 438–440. doi: 10.1038/466438a [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koocher, G.P., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2016). Ethics in psychology and the mental health professions: Standards and cases (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kukucka, J., Kassin, S.M., Zapf, P.A., & Dror, I.E. (2017). Cognitive bias and blindness: A global survey of forensic science examiners . Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition , 6 ( 4 ), 452–459. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.09.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, A., & Lincoln, R. (2017). Reciprocity and exchange: Perspectives of male victims of family violence. In Petherick W. & Sinnamon G. (Eds.), The psychology of criminal and antisocial behavior: Victim and offender perspectives (pp. 233–256). London, UK: Elsevier. [ Google Scholar ]
• Levelt, W.J.M. (2012). Flawed science: The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel. Retrieved from http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/nieuws-en-agenda/finalreportLevelt.pdf
• Lilienfeld, S.O. (2002). A funny thing happened on the way to my American Psychologist publication . American Psychologist , 57 ( 3 ), 225–227. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.57.3.225 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lilienfeld, S.O. (2012). Scientific utopia or scientific dystopia? Psychological Inquiry , 23 ( 3 ), 277–280. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2012.704807 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MacDonald, K.M. (1995). The sociology of professions . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• McAuliff, B.D., Hunt, J.S., Levett, L.M., Zelechoski, A.D., Scherr, K.C., & DeMatteo, D. (2019). Taking the next steps: Promoting open science and expanding diversity in Law and Human Behavior . Law and Human Behavior , 43 ( 1 ), 1–8. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000322 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller v Alabama, U. S. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-9646g2i8.pdf .
• Neal, T.M.S., & Brodsky, S.L. (2016). Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potential correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations . Psychology, Public Policy, and Law , 22 ( 1 ), 58–76. doi: 10.1037/law0000077 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neal, T.M.S., & Grisso, T. (2014). The cognitive underpinnings of bias in forensic mental health evaluations . Psychology, Public Policy, and Law , 20 ( 2 ), 200–211. doi: 10.1037/a0035824 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nosek, B.A., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2012). Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication . Psychological Inquiry , 23 ( 3 ), 217–243. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2012.692215 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parsons, T. (1968). Professions. In Sills D. L. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of social sciences (Vol. 12 , pp. 536–546). New York, NY: MacMillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pierson, C.A. (2015). Reviewing journal manuscripts: An easy to follow guide for any nurse reviewing journal manuscripts for publication . Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pierson, C.A. (2016). Recognizing peer reviewers and why that matters . Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners , 28 ( 1 ), 5–5. doi: 10.1002/2327-6924.12340 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quinsey, V.L., Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E., & Comier, C.A. (2006). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk (2nd ed.). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. [ Google Scholar ]
• Quinsey, V.L., Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E., & Cormier, C.A. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [ Google Scholar ]
• R v Peta. (2007). 2 NZLR 627. Retrieved from http://www.lawreports.nz/r-v-peta-2007-2-nzlr-627/
• Redding, R.E. (2001). Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism . American Psychologist , 56 ( 3 ), 205–215. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.205 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Regehr, C., Edwardh, M., & Bradford, J. (2000). Research ethics and forensic patients . The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry , 45 ( 10 ), 892–898. doi: 10.1177/070674370004501003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rice, M.E., & Harris, G.T. (1997). Cross-validation and extension of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide for child molesters and rapists . Law and Human Behavior , 21 ( 2 ), 231–241. doi: 10.1023/A:1024882430242 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts, J. (2016). Predatory journals: Illegitimate publishing and its threat to all readers and authors . The Journal of Sexual Medicine , 13 ( 12 ), 1830–1833. doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.10.008 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roper v Simmons, 543 U.S. 551. (2005). Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/543/551.html .
• Rosenfeld, B., & Green, D. (2009). Ethical and legal issues in conducting treatment research with potentially violent individuals. In Fisher C., Buchanan D. A., & Gable L. (Eds.), Research with high-risk populations: Balancing science, ethics, and law (1st ed., pp. 167–187). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenthal, R. (1994). Science and ethics in conducting, analyzing, and reporting psychological research . Psychological Science , 5 ( 3 ), 127–134. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00646.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salaam, A.O., & Brown, J. (2013). Ethical dilemmas in psychological research with vulnerable groups in Africa . Ethics & Behavior , 23 ( 3 ), 167–178. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2012.728478 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schiltz, M. (2018). Science without publication paywalls: cOAlition S for the realisation of full and immediate Open Access . PLoS Biology , 16 ( 9 ), e3000031. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000031 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schminke, M. (2009). Editor’s comments: The better angels of our nature-rthics and integrity in the publishing process . Management and Organization Review , 34 ( 4 ), 586–591. doi: 10.5465/amr.2009.44882922 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider, J.L. (2006). Professional codes of ethics: Their role and implications for international research . Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice , 22 ( 2 ), 173–192. doi: 10.1177/1043986206286960 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schüklenk, U. (2000). Protecting the vulnerable: Testing times for clinical research ethics . Social Science & Medicine , 51 ( 6 ), 969–977. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00075-7 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smallbone, S.W., & Rallings, M. (2013). Short-term predictive validity of the Static-99 and Static-99-R for Indigenous and Nonindigenous Australian sexual offenders . Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment , 25 ( 3 ), 302–316. doi: 10.1177/1079063212472937 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals . Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine , 99 ( 4 ), 178–182. doi: 10.1177/014107680609900414 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinberg, L. (2013). The influence of neuroscience on US Supreme Court decisions about adolescents’ criminal culpability . Nature Reviews Neuroscience , 14 ( 7 ), 513–518. doi: 10.1038/nrn3509 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stone, A.A., & MacCourt, D.C. (2008). Ethics in forensic psychiatry: Re-imagining the wasteland after 25 years . The Journal of Psychiatry & Law , 36 ( 4 ), 617–643. doi: 10.1177/009318530803600406 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Straight, T.M. (2009). Clinical research regulation: Challenges to the institutional review board system . Clinics in Dermatology , 27 ( 4 ), 375–383. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2009.02.012 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strickland, J., Parry, C.L., Allan, M.M., & Allan, A. (2017). Alexithymia amongst perpetrators of violent offences in Australia: Implications for rehabilitation . Australian Psychologist , 52 ( 3 ), 230–237. doi: 10.1111/ap.12187 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van ‘T Veer, A.E., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2016). Pre-registration in social psychology – A discussion and suggested template . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 67 , 2–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.03.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Loon, K., & Lindegger, G. (2009). Consent in clinical trials: Perceptions and experiences of a sample of South African researcher . Health SA Gesondheid , 14 ( 1 ), 81–87. doi: 10.4102/hsag.v14i1.463 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward, T., & Willis, G. (2010). Ethical issues in forensic and correctional research . Aggression and Violent Behavior , 15 ( 6 ), 399–409. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2010.07.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wells, G.L. (2014). Eyewitness identification probative value, criterion shifts, and policy regarding the sequential lineup . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 23 ( 1 ), 11–16. doi: 10.1177/0963721413504781 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong, S.C.P., Olver, M.E., Nicholaichuk, T., & Gordon, A. (2003). The Violence Risk Scale – Sex Offender version (VRO-SO) . Saskatoon: Regional Psychiatric Centre and University of Saskatchewan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong, S.C.P., Olver, M., Nicholaichuk, T., & Gordon, A. (2006). Violence Risk Scale–Sexual version. Retrieved from http://www.psynergy.ca/VRS_VRS-SO.html
• Wright, P.M. (2016). Ensuring research integrity: An editor’s perspective . Journal of Management , 42 ( 5 ), 1037–1043. doi: 10.1177/0149206316643931 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zapf, P.A., & Dror, I.E. (2017). Understanding and mitigating bias in forensic evaluation: lessons from forensic science . International Journal of Forensic Mental Health , 16 ( 3 ), 227–238. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2017.1317302 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zapf, P.A., Hubbard, K.L., Cooper, V.G., Wheeles, M.C., & Ronan, K.A. (2004). Have the courts abdicated their responsibility for determination of competency to stand trial to clinicians? Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice , 4 ( 1 ), 27–44. doi: 10.1300/J158v04n01_02 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]